Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE KING

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. POPPLEWELL) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:

I have received your Address praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark of the Convention set out in the Draft Order in Council entitled The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Denmark) Order, 1950, a copy of which was presented on the 8th May, an order may be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Government of India (Family Pension Funds) (Amendment) Order, 1950, be made in the form of the Draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

GLOUCESTER EXTENSION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next at Seven o'Clock.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Men Over 45

Mr. Reader Harris: asked the Minister of Labour what representations he has received from the Over Forty-Fives Association Limited, regarding the difficulties experienced by men over the age of 45 in obtaining suitable employment; and what action he proposes taking.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I have been unable to trace the receipt of any representations from this association. I am, of course, well aware of the problem but, as I have said on various occasions, the solution depends on a change in the outlook of individual employers which we are trying to bring about. In the meantime, the local officers of the Ministry continue to take every opportunity of persuading employers to consider older men on their merits.

Mr. Harris: Is it possible to regard this as a national problem and make an appeal through the Federation of British Industries to their members in order that they may, in turn, regard this as a national problem and give priority to these men over 45?

Mr. Isaacs: We have done that through the British Employers' Confederation. They have given their support, but they cannot bring pressure to bear on individual members.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Is the Minister aware of the deep feeling on this matter in many parts of the country? Does he know, for example, that in my constituency while there are practically no unemployed males under 55 years of age, there are 30 or 40 on the register above that age? Would it be possible for the Government to consider some kind of percentage for those who are aged?

Mr. Isaacs: That raises a very difficult question. We have had a little experience ourselves of trying compulsion on workers, and I do not know what would happen if we tried it on the employers.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Has the Minister issued any instructions to the nationalised industries to give a lead in this matter?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, no instructions have been issued to them, but conversations have taken place with them and they are co-operating very cordially in the matter.

Furniture Industry

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Labour the extent of present unemployment and short-time in the furniture industry; and what steps he proposes to take to ease the situation.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) on 29th June, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. Haire: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the figures given on that occasion represent a very considerable increase in recent weeks; is he aware that certain furniture factories have closed recently, and that the men in the industry are most concerned about the future? Will he do everything he can to help?

Mr. Isaacs: Certainly. If my hon. Friend will give me details, I shall be glad to look into them.

Theatres (American Artists)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of Labour to how many American artists playing in British theatres at the present time have licences to work in this country been allotted; and to what extent British artists with similar qualifications are being displaced.

Mr. Isaacs: Without special inquiry it would not be possible to give the information asked for in the first part of the Question; in regard to the second part, applicants for permits to employ foreigners are required to give a guarantee that no British subject will be displaced or excluded in consequence of the engagement of such foreigners.

Mr. Cooper: my right hon. Friend say on what basis a decision is made to grant these licences, and what steps are taken by his Ministry to ensure that similar facilities are permitted for an equal number of British artists to earn their living in the United States?

Mr. Isaacs: That is another question. I could give the information if a question was put on the Order Paper.

Coatbridge

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Minister of Labour (1) the percentage unemployed registering at Coatbridge employment exchange; and what information he has as to the reasons for unemployment in the tinplate and Woodside factories;
(2) what information he has regarding unemployment in the Waverley, Woodside, and Coats heavy industries in Coat-bridge; and as to the reason for it.

Mr. Isaacs: The number of unemployed persons on the registers of the Coatbridge employment exchange at 12th June represented about 6 per cent. of the total number of employees in the area. I am informed that the Woodside iron works and the Coatbridge tinplate company are no longer able to compete with the more modern rolling mills. They have been working short time and are expected to close down shortly. I understand that normal production has been resumed at the Coats and the Waverley iron works, which employ some 380 workers.

Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply is completely contrary to that given to me last week by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply who said:
There is no competition with Belgian steel…and I have no reason to suppose that further orders for lapwelded tubes will fall below the present level."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 257.]
May we have some co-ordination between these two Departments?

Mr. Isaacs: I was not aware that this inquiry was in reference to Belgian steel. I was merely asked for the facts about unemployment and that is the Question I have answered.

Mrs. Mann: Would my right hon. Friend communicate these facts to the Ministry of Supply so that we may have less ignorant replies from that Ministry, and so that something may be done for the heavy industries of Coatbridge?

Mr. Isaacs: I will most certainly communicate with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are most anxious to do what they can so far as Coatbridge is concerned.

Mr. Osborne: Is not it unreasonable to expect good planning between Socialist Ministries?

Foreign Domestic Workers

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent supervision is exercised by him over agencies arranging for the engagement in domestic service of girls from the Continent of Europe; and what prior inquiries he requires to be made abroad concerning the character and antecedents of such girls.

Mr. Isaacs: I have no power to control the activities of private employment agencies. A prospective employer of a foreign domestic worker from abroad is advised by my Department, before he applies for a permit, to ensure, among other things, that her health and character are satisfactory.

Mr. Wakefield: Does that reply mean that no supervision at all is exercised over these agencies?

Mr. Isaacs: No. Sir. We have no power to exercise supervision over an agency unless it operates in an area where the local authority have taken the necessary powers to themselves.

Industrial Canteens (Building Licences)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he has made for securing that the necessary building licences are issued for the construction by industrial concerns of canteen facilities for their staffs recommended by his officers.

Mr. Isaacs: There are arrangements for consultation between factory inspectors and officers of Departments concerned with applications for building licences for work connected with factories. If the hon. Member has in mind any particular case of difficulty and will send me particulars I will be glad to look into it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in the light of that suggestion, the case of a firm in my constituency where the local officer has recommended the erection of a canteen and the Ministry of Works have turned it down?

Mr. Isaacs: There are three cases in the hon. Member's constituency where

such a state of affairs has arisen, and where our inspectors have stepped in and have been able to ensure that what was absolutely necessary was done. If the case the hon. Gentleman has in mind is not one with which we have already dealt, I will look into the matter.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged.

Strikes

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Reginald Bennett: asked the Minister of Labour how many man-days have been lost each year from 1945 to 1949 by reason of official and unofficial strikes, respectively.

Mr. Isaacs: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the proper constitutional machinery for negotiation is ignored on such a large scale nowadays?

Mr. Isaacs: That is another question.

Mr. McCorquodale: Is not it a fact that there have been no official strikes in this period?

Mr. Isaacs: There has only been one, and that was by coach builders some time ago.

Following is the reply:

The information available does not permit a distinction to be made between official and unofficial stoppages. The approximate number of working days lost owing to stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in each of the five years 1945 to 1949 was as follows:


1945
…
…
…
2,835,000


1946
…
…
…
2,158,000


1947
…
…
…
2,433,000


1948
…
…
…
1,944,000


1949
…
…
…
1,807,000

Southampton

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he has made to secure alternative employment for all those whose posts will become redundant when the Solent flying boats cease to operate from the marine air base at Southampton.

Mr. Isaacs: There are good opportunities of alternative employment in the district, and the employment exchange service will assist redundant workers who register to obtain suitable work.

Building Trade (Overtime Committees)

Mr. W. Robson-Brown: asked the Minister of Labour what is the status of the local joint overtime committees of the building trade; and what is the statutory authority of their decisions.

Mr. Isaacs: These overtime committees are established under the constitution of the National Joint Council for the building Industry, which is the voluntary machinery established by the two sides of the industry for the negotiations of wages and conditions of employment, and their decisions have no statutory authority in themselves. By virtue of the provisions of the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order (S.R. & O. 1305 of 1940), however, these decisions may form part of the "recognised terms and conditions of employment" which must be observed under Part III of that Order.

Mr. Robson-Brown: Will not the Minister consider using his influence with these tribunals, and with both sides in industry, to persuade them to undertake overtime in the house building section of the building industry, so that a quicker rate of building can be achieved and more houses provided for homeless people?

Mr. Isaacs: I think it is true to say that, except for a certain case that was advertised very widely, and which was misunderstood, a little while ago, a considerable amount of overtime is worked and expedition is shown.

Statistics

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Minister of Labour what was the average number of registered unemployed in Britain in the five years ending 30th June, 1950, and for the corresponding period after the First World War.

Mr. Isaacs: The available figures are given in the issues of the Ministry of Labour Gazette, copies of which are in the Library.

Oral Answers to Questions — CATERING WAGES COMMISSION (REPORT)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to have the Report of the Catering Wages Commission.

Mr. Isaacs: I am informed that the Commission have reached an advanced stage in their consideration of this matter, but I am not in a position to state when I can expect to have their report.

Mr. McCorquodale: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is increasingly important for the hotel industry to have this report, so that they can make plans for the Exhibition year?

Mr. Isaacs: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee is working on that basis. I informed the House a short time ago that there was no prospect of getting the report in time for legislation this year. However, I am satisfied that it will not be very long delayed—only a matter of weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Teachers' Salaries

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Education to what extent the settlements made by the Burnham Committee for the salaries of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses are approved by the members of the profession concerned.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): The procedure between the panels of the Burnham Committees and the associations represented thereon is not my concern.

Mr. Bossom: Does the right hon. Gentleman get many letters expressing dissatisfaction with the results of these negotiations?

Mr. Tomlinson: I get letters of dissatisfaction about a lot of things.

Mr. Bossom: Does the right hon. Gentleman get them about this, particularly?

Mr. Tomlinson: No.

Mr. Bossom: I will send a few.

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that the Burnham Committee's next recommendations will not be made known


before April, 1951, and that the question of readjusting teachers' salaries to the changed value of money is too urgent to wait until that date; and what action he proposes to take in order to rectify the matter at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not know when the Burnham Committee will be submitting their recommendations for salary scales. It will be my duty to consider their recommendations when they are submitted, but it would not be proper for me to take any action of the kind suggested by the hon. Member while the matter is being considered by the Committee.

Mr. Renton: Has not experience in the last four years shown clearly that the Burnham Committee machinery is too slow to keep pace with the rising cost of living; and will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his responsibility for our educational system and the need for a quick adjustment in this matter, please reconsider the whole question of how teachers' salaries are to be fixed in future?

Mr. Tomlinson: The Burnham Committee procedure was laid down in the Act of 1944, and when the hon. Member suggests that it has not been satisfactory I would point out to him that there was an agreement reached as late as 1948.

Earl Winterton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in grammar schools there is the utmost difficulty in obtaining teachers under what is regarded as the miserable salary permitted under the Burnham award? Surely he will have regard to the seriousness of this matter.

Mr. Tomlinson: That is an entirely different question from that on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend not cut down teachers' salaries, as hon. Members opposite did?

Mr. Odey: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the salaries paid to graduate teachers, and especially to science graduates, are not likely to attract recruits to the teaching profession, and are lower than those paid in industry and private enterprise?

Mr. Tomlinson: All that the hon. Member says may be true, but I would point out that all the facts are known to

the Burnham Committee, who are dealing with this matter in the usual way.

Diocesan Schemes

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Minister of Education how many diocesan schemes he has in preparation under Section 86 of the Education Act, 1944; and when they will be completed.

Mr. Tomlinson: Nineteen draft schemes, of which 12 are concerned with complete dioceses and seven with parts of dioceses, are now in preparation. They are at various stages of completion and will take from one month to about nine months to complete.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the length of time during which some of these applications have been in his Department is causing great difficulties in the dioceses concerned, and can he do anything to expedite the preparation of these schemes?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is a question of manpower and, as the hon. Member knows, difficult legal problems are involved. A big increase in manpower at my Ministry would be required to produce the expedition he requires.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Minister of Education what is the estimated loss to date caused to diocesan funds through the reversion of educational foundations under the School Sites Act, 1841, owing to delays in the preparation of diocesan schemes under Section 86 of the Education Act, 1944; and what steps he is taking to reimburse the diocese.

Mr. Tomlinson: Owing to the number of dioceses and the large number of endowments in each diocese to be dealt with, the Section 86 schemes, although well under way, will take some considerable time to complete. But even if every Section 86 scheme had been prepared and completed no reverter in a case where the reversioner is known could be prevented unless that person consents to relinquish his rights. There is, therefore, no question of loss to the diocese and no question of reimbursement consequently arises.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is the delay in the preparation of these schemes which has enabled reverters to take back


their own foundation properties and that, in some cases, this is costing dioceses up to £10,000?

Mr. Tomlinson: No action on my part could have prevented that.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that would have been prevented if his Department had acted with greater promptitude before the reversioners had stepped in?

Mr. Tomlinson: If I had acted with great promptitude and appointed the number of people required, I can imagine the shout which we would have had from hon. Gentleman opposite about increasing the number of civil servants in my Department.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many people are employed in this Department?

Mr. Tomlinson: Not without notice.

Mr. Nicholson: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the loss? Surely he must have some idea.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have some idea, but cannot give the answer without notice. If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down, he shall have it.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does not the answer mean that requests for information by his Department are to be financed by the Church.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, it does not mean that at all.

Endowment Funds

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Minister of Education how many applications he has received for schemes to transfer endowment funds from controlled to aided schools; how many he has granted; how many he has refused; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tomlinson: The answer to the first three parts of the Question is "None," though I have received one or two inquiries whether such endowments could not be included in the Section 86 schemes. Owing to shortage of staff, I can at present only make such schemes for the sale of disused schools or schools about to close and for the application of their proceeds for diocesan purposes.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that he is prepared favourably to receive applications for the endowment funds of controlled schools being transferred to aided schools?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, in the main, I think that could be deduced from what I have said. Where a school can be sold for diocesan purposes, we try to speed up the matter.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Has the Minister got this right? The Question does not relate to the schools themselves, but to the endowment funds of controlled schools. Can these be transferred to aided schools, because, so far, the Department are not agreeing to any schemes set up?

Mr. Tomlinson: This is a very complicated matter, as I have said before, to discuss at Question Time. If the hon. Gentleman will come round to the Department to discuss it with myself and the lawyers there, we shall do our best to meet him.

Village Halls

Mr. Profumo: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that as a result of the Government's decision to discontinue grants towards the erection of village halls, considerable injustice is being caused among village communities which had previously entered into financial commitments with architects, solicitors, etc., which they still have to meet with nothing to show for the outlay; and whether, in view of this, he will reconsider his decision in respect of local communities which he is satisfied fall into this category, with a view to carrying out the original financial obligation in these particular cases.

Mr. Tomlinson: I regret the necessity for holding up approval to village hall and similar projects, which is due entirely to the limited resources at my disposal, and I am aware that commitments of the kind suggested by the hon. Member have been entered into. I am anxious that there should be some relaxation of these restrictions, but I am not yet in a position to make any announcement.

Mr. Profumo: Can the Minister say how long it will be before he can make up his mind, so as to reassure village


communities that they have not been throwing their money away on these projects?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have made up my mind already. It is a question of how I can apply that to which I have made up my mind.

Mr. Assheton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to those villages which have been collecting money for a very long time, and have not yet been able to get a licence?

Mr. Tomlinson: I shall give full consideration to all; I am just as anxious as any hon. Member of the Opposition to get this moving.

Dr. King: Will my right hon. Friend see that village halls do not take precedence over the rebuilding of the shocking village schools which still exist?

Sub-Normal Children

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Education how many educationally subnormal children there are in the country; how many are receiving specialised training at State schools; and how many are being educated at private specialised schools.

Mr. Tomlinson: At the beginning of this year, there were 27,577 children in England and Wales who had been ascertained by local education authorities as requiring education in special schools for educationally sub-normal children; of these 15,030 were attending approved special schools and 63 were being sent by local education authorities to independent schools. The remaining 12,484 were awaiting places in special schools.

Mr. Wood: Is the Minister aware that there are some areas in the country where these facilities are not available? Can he say what steps he intends to take to try to overcome these difficulties in the rural areas?

Mr. Tomlinson: We have had consultations with local education authorities all over the country about this problem, which is not an easy one to solve. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in the last four calendar years, 1,750 additional places have been provided for these children, and that work in 1950 and 1951 is expected to produce over 2,000 places.

Mr. Nicholson: Can the Minister say how many of these children are in mental hospitals and institutions, and how many are there now in mental hospitals and institutions who could not possibly be classified as sub-normal, and who would derive benefit from special training but who are not receiving it?

Mr. Tomlinson: None of those to whom I have referred.

Burnham Committee (Representation)

Mr. Peter Roberts: asked the Minister of Education whether he will now arrange that reasonable representation be afforded to the National Association of Schoolmasters upon the Burnham Committee.

Mr. Tomlinson: My Department has from time to time received representations from several associations of teachers, of which the National Association of Schoolmasters is one, claiming that they should be represented on the Burnham Committee. All these representations have been very carefully considered, and in some cases the matter has been discussed at personal interviews. I consider that the present composition of the teachers' panels on the Burnham Committee is already wide enough to ensure that the general views of teachers are represented, and I do not think that the addition of individuals from these minority associations would facilitate negotiations. Having regard particularly to the definition of the powers under Section 89 of the Education Act, 1944, I am not prepared to insist on the inclusion of representatives of this Association.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister not consider that it might assist the Burnham Committee to have at least one representative of 12,000 teachers who are not otherwise represented?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is not a question of one representative. If one of these minority organisations is included, then immediately a claim is set up by the others.

Infants (School Accommodation)

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Education if he is satisfied that no child between the ages of five and six is now being excluded from school owing to lack of accommodation.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have no information as to the number of children between the ages of five and six now excluded from school owing to lack of accommodation, but it is estimated that just over 91 per cent. of the five year old age-group were in maintained primary schools in January, 1950, this being a higher percentage than in any other post-war year.

Mr. Morley: Is it not a fact that there is not sufficient accommodation at Reigate, Muswell Hill, Hackney and Holley, Surrey, to admit all infants when they reach the age of five, and will my right hon. Friend assist these areas?

Mr. Tomlinson: If my hon. Friend will send me that information, it will help us in making inquiries in those areas. I would point out to him that there are occasions on which, after a school has opened, facilities are available for children excluded at the beginning of the session.

Size of Classes

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Education if he is satisfied that by 1953 there will be sufficient teachers in the schools under his jurisdiction to staff such schools so that no class shall exceed 40 on roll in primary schools and 30 on roll in secondary schools; and when he anticipates that there will be sufficient to ensure that no class either in primary or secondary schools shall exceed 30 on roll.

Mr. Tomlinson: It will not be practicable to require by 1953 that no class in a primary or secondary school shall exceed the maximum numbers prescribed by grant regulations. A reduction in the size of classes depends on an adequate supply both of school accommodation and of teachers, and for some years to come our main efforts must be directed to providing sufficient accommodation and teachers to meet the needs of the rising school population. I am, however, constantly seeking to improve the ratio of pupils to teachers, and in January, 1950, this was estimated to be 27.1 compared with 29.4 just before the war. It is not possible to forecast when there will be a sufficiency of accommodation and teachers to ensure that no class shall exceed 30 on roll.

Comprehensive Schools

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the uncertainties and difficulties

which have arisen in consequence of the absence of any authoritative publication or pronouncement relating to the establishment, maintenance and development of the comprehensive school; and whether he is in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have stated my views, about the organisation of secondary education generally in the pamphlet "The New Secondary Education," and in Circular 144 I have made particular reference to comprehensive schools. I am sending copies of both documents to the hon. Member.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that official publications of the Ministry —including even that fine publication, "Our Changing Schools"—speak consistently and persistently of the comprehensive or multilateral school? Does that not imply a confusion of thought?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is not only my circulars on which confusion of thought arises, but every question that is put on this matter.

Trained Teachers

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Education how far the number of trained teachers available is sufficient to meet the national need.

Mr. Tomlinson: I would refer the hon. Member to Circular 222, dated 29th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

Modern Language Training

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education whether his attention has been called to the recent report of the education authority on modern language teaching in Yorkshire, which stresses the difficulty of obtaining competent teachers of modern languages; and whether he will improve the facilities for modern language training in teachers' training colleges.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir, but I have seen an article in the Press which may be what the hon. Member has in mind. The facilities for modern language training in training colleges are being continuously improved.

Mr. Hollis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he studies his own report


he will see that the demand for modern language teaching is also increasing with great rapidity, and that the question is whether the supply is increasing at the same rate as the demand?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have read my own report. I realise that what the hon. Member says is true, and that is the reason for the continuous improvement in the training colleges.

Mr. Hollis: The report is not an improvement in itself.

Staff Exchanges

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education if he will make arrangements to second officials of his Department to local authorities in order to widen their experience of educational problems.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have every desire to make such arrangements if the practical difficulties can be overcome. Suggestions for an exchange of staff with one large local education authority are, in fact, at present being considered by my Department.

Mr. Hollis: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as soon as possible as to whether there are any practical difficulties in this, or whether such arrangements can be made? I am sure we shall be glad to hear from him on this point.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, when we come to a conclusion about the one we are seeking to negotiate.

Schools (Boxing Instruction)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Education what advice his Department gives to local education authorities about the inclusion of boxing in the physical training syllabus at boys' schools.

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Education whether boxing in national boys' schools is among the sports approved by his Department.

Mr. Tomlinson: It is not my practice to say whether boxing or any other subject of instruction should be included in the school curriculum, which is a matter for the local education authorities and the schools to determine. I have issued no published advice about the teaching of boxing in schools, but it is, in fact, taught on a voluntary basis at many, but by no

means all, maintained secondary schools for boys.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister pursue this sensible policy and impress on his colleagues that the greater the success which the Minister of Education has in ensuring physical fitness, the less work there will be for the Minister of National Insurance to do?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not think that the prejudices of the Minister of Education should enter into the fixing of the curriculum; otherwise, I might be tempted to substitute soccer for rugby.

Mr. Deedes: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist any attempt to substitute for this manly sport lectures on the rule of law?

Mr. Tomlinson: I should resist any attempt to interfere with the right of the local education authorities and the teachers to determine their own curricula.

Mrs. Mann: Is the only training for physical fitness to be found in the knowledge of how to deliver good, hard punches and how to knock another man's eye out?

Mr. Odey: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind in this connection the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is no good putting these questions to me; I am not an authority on the subject.

Emergency Training Scheme (Ex-Service Men)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Education what were his reasons for terminating the emergency training of teachers scheme for ex-members of the Regular Armed Forces; and in view of the fact that there are still many men in need of such grants, if he will reopen it.

Mr. Tomlinson: The emergency scheme for the training of teachers was not designed specifically for ex-members of the Regular Armed Forces, but was part of the general arrangements for resettlement of men and women who had been engaged in some form of National Service during the war. It is now necessary to establish the arrangements for the recruitment and training of teachers on a permanent footing.

Mr. Crouch: Is the Minister satisfied that it is fair that ex-members of the Regular Forces should be prevented from getting justice when they are most anxious to enter the teaching profession?

Mr. Tomlinson: To the extent that it is possible to take into consideration the question which the hon. Member has raised, I will certainly consider what can be done to meet the needs of the more mature candidates, including, if necessary, ex-members of the Regular Armed Forces, when framing future arrangements for teachers.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERETSE KHAMA (INQUIRY REPORT)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will arrange for the public to have access to the Harrigan inquiry report respecting Seretse Khama: and what is the procedure to be followed to enable members of the public to peruse this document.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It is not intended to publish the report of the judicial inquiry. The reasons for this decision are explained fully in paragraph 10 of the White Paper.

Mr. Sorensen: Does my right hon. Friend's answer mean that even Members of this House will not at any time be able to read the details of the report?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Trade Returns, Germany

Mr. Keeling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for trade returns in future years to distinguish between the eastern zone of Germany and the western zones.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.

Russian Timber

Mr. Gammans: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken or proposes to take to satisfy himself that the timber which he is buying from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has not been felled and prepared by slave labour or under conditions

which would contravene the fair wages agreements which he would demand if the timber were being purchased by the Government from supplies in this country.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am afraid that it is not realistic to expect that His Majesty's Government could satisfy themselves as to the conditions in which timber is felled and prepared in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Gammans: Is it not rank hypocrisy for the right hon. Gentleman to lay. down the most stringent conditions under which timber shall be cut in this country, and, at the same time, to be quite indifferent as to how it is cut abroad? Does he realise that the conditions under which timber is cut in the Soviet Union would revolt the human conscience?

Mr. Wilson: By far the larger proportion of the timber bought in this country is bought by the merchants, and not by the Government.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the Minister aware that if we bought more timber felled in Canada—of which we could get more if there were a keener sense of getting it than of getting timber from Russia —there would be no doubt about the conditions?

Mr. Wilson: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well, the amount bought from Canada is limited by dollars.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Why not give them the high grade steel which they want?

Mr. Speaker: The Question is about timber from Soviet Russia.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Will my right hon. Friend attempt to get more timber from Russia or anywhere else if that will help to improve the housing situation in this country?

Ex-Naval Base, Corpach

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the use of the Corpach ex-naval base for industrial development.

Mr. H. Wilson: This base is on land requisitioned by the Admiralty, and it is not yet known whether it will be available for industrial development.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Can the Minister say what steps he is taking to secure this base for industrial development, bearing in mind that it is a first-class place for the establishment of suitable industries?

Mr. Wilson: I am in the course of discussion with my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty about it, but I am sure the noble Lord will realise that there will be considerable difficulty in persuading private industries to set up there.

Furniture Industry (Recession)

Mr. Haire: asked the President of the Board of Trade the causes of the present recession of trade in the furniture industry; and if he will take steps to stimulate its recovery.

Mr. H. Wilson: In the first three months of this year, manufacturers' and retailers' sales of utility furniture showed increases on the corresponding period of last year of 30 per cent. and 17½ per cent., respectively. Although later figures show that retail trade has been well maintained, I understand that retailers' orders from manufacturers are falling.

Mr. Haire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable unemployment and recession of trade in the furniture industry at the moment, and much anxiety about future orders? Will he consider whether he can help by improving present hire purchase arrangements in the trade, and whether he can widen the utility range of furniture? In particular, will he ask the Furniture Industry Development Council to set up immediately machinery for market research?

Mr. Wilson: As I have made clear, purchases of furniture this year have been considerably above those of last year, but I am looking into the question raised by my hon. Friend about hire purchase.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Is not the reason for this recession the failure of the Minister of Health to build houses?

Nylon Stockings

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the fully-fashioned nylon stockings sold in this country are seconds; and when

does he expect to increase the supply of perfect stockings to the home market.

Mr. H. Wilson: The necessity to meet the export demand for the highest quality of fully-fashioned nylon stockings has meant that the home market has, so far, received a greater percentage of stockings which are below the high standard which will apply when production more nearly approaches the level of total home and export requirements. The percentage of "perfects" at present going to the home market is about 50 for fully-fashioned nylon stockings and about 67 for circular-knitted nylon stockings.

Mr. Osborne: Can the Minister say when this supply of nylon yarn will be increased sufficiently to allow only perfect goods to be put on the home market?

Mr. Wilson: It would be very difficult to give any categorical answer to that until we know more about the success of the manufacturers in pushing their sales in hard currency areas.

Mr. Odey: Will the Minister bear in mind that the women of this country are getting very tired of being fobbed off with second-grade articles? Will he also bear in mind that the impression is being created in this country that our own manufacturers cannot produce first-class goods, which is quite untrue?

Mrs. Middleton: Would my right hon. Friend make inquiries to see what percentage of nylon stockings in this country are of the fishnet or locknit variety? Would he do more to get that type of stocking on the home market?

Mr. Wilson: I should want notice of that, but I am pursuing inquiries into a number of questions about nylon manufacture, and more particularly about conditions of distribution of nylon stockings.

Newsprint Supplies

Mr. Deedes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the provisional figure for the export of newsprint from this country during the year 1950; and how does this figure compare with the total exports of newsprint during 1949.

Mr. H. Wilson: The estimated figure for the export of newsprint in 1950 is 100,000 tons, as compared with about 60,000 tons in 1949.

Mr. Deedes: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile these increased exports—probably reduced imports—with the present size and threatened size of the newspapers?

Mr. Wilson: The newspapers were left quite free some months ago to settle the size of their papers, within broad limits. In the event, their estimates of newsprint available proved far too optimistic, and the increase to seven pages, originally made for the election period, could not be maintained.

Mr. Deedes: Does the Minister propose to allow this quantity of newsprint to be exported despite what has happened?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, and if the hon. Gentleman knew the importance attached to this question by Governments in other parts of the Commonwealth—because almost the whole of our export is to Commonwealth countries—I do not think he would press me to reduce the figure.

Mr. Hurd: Did not the right hon. Gentleman persist in refusing to allow any newsprint to be brought from Canada, so that we had to break our contract and cannot now get what we should have?

Mr. Wilson: Our dollar position was such that we could not afford dollars for newsprint from Canada until two or three months ago. These dollars have been allocated but, so far, the newspapers have been unable to buy the newsprint they thought they would be able to get.

Production Costs

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the response to his appeal last October for the reduction of our costs of production; by how much have they been reduced; and if he is now satisfied with regard to our competitive position in world markets.

Mr. H. Wilson: Although wage rates have been steady for some months, one important component of costs, imported raw materials, has risen substantially in price since September, 1949. The increase in United Kingdom export prices since devaluation reflects these increased costs but the promising course of export trade does not suggest impairment of our current competitive position. Indeed,

there is evidence that in the most difficult markets the prices of our exports are highly competitive. In the longer run, however, our standard of living must depend on our competitive power and there will have to be reductions in our relative costs of production if we are to preserve our export position in an increasingly competitive world.

Mr. Osborne: Can the Minister tell the House by how much our raw materials have increased since last October? Is it a greater increase than the saving we have been able to make in productive industry by increasing our efficiency?

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman will put the question down, I will certainly give him the figures of the Board of Trade Index of Wholesale Prices.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Would the Minister not agree that our competitive power depends very largely upon the maintenance of the internal purchasing power of the pound sterling? What steps does he propose to urge upon his colleagues to that end?

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREAN CAMPAIGN (INFORMATION)

Earl Winterton: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the participation of British and British Commonwealth Forces in the Korean campaign, he will, with due regard to military security and after consultation with the Government of the United States of America, issue periodical communiquéóes on the progress of operations for the information of this House and the public.

The Prime Minister: As regards the day-to-day reporting of military operations in Korea, communiquéóes are being issued from Tokyo, and I should not normally wish to amplify these as they will, I am sure, appear in the Press. In accordance with the Security Council resolution, the United States Government have appointed a Commander-in-Chief of the Forces engaged in the Korean operations. These include Commonwealth units. I will, of course, inform the House of any major developments in connection with the employment of United Kingdom or other Commonwealth Forces in response to the Security Council resolution, but should prefer not to make such announcements at regular intervals.

Earl Winterton: Could the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to this fact —that it might be brought home to the public that an American Force, greatly outnumbered and greatly outgunned, fighting with the accustomed gallantry of the American and British Armies in such a situation, supported by Commonwealth and British naval and Air Forces, is the only effective opposition to Communist aggression in Korea at present? The public have got somewhat confused in their minds in this matter. In other words, collective security resides in those Forces.

The Prime Minister: I thought most people appreciated that. I am sure the noble Lord's question will bring it home.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that in communiquéóes from Tokyo there are reports of atrocities committed against American soldiers by Northern Koreans? Is he aware there are also very substantial reports of atrocities committed by South Koreans against North Koreans? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Will he see that there is some objectivity in these reports?

The Prime Minister: That seems to me to be entirely irrelevant to the Question.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to safeguard British Forces operating in the Far East from the publication of information which, on grounds of security, is detrimental to the Korean operations, particularly in view of the request made by General MacArthur, the United Nations Commander-in-Chief, to Press correspondents in this connection.

The Prime Minister: I have seen the request referred to in this Question. I am confident that the Press in this country will comply with the spirit of General MacArthur's request, and will exercise great discretion in regard to the publication of any information which might affect adversely the Korean operations or the security of the Forces which may be engaged in them. The Service Departments will be glad to give guidance to the Press in this respect on any specific matter which may be referred to them.

Mr. Greenwood: Would the Prime Minister emphasise to our American Allies that this country will not tolerate any attempt to impose censorship of opinion, however repugnant that opinion may be to ourselves or America?

The Prime Minister: That does not seem to arise from this Question.

Brigadier Head: Would the Prime Minister consider giving facilities for the Service Departments to give a general briefing from time to time, to the Press so that they are in the picture on everything and do not innocently commit any indiscretions likely to affect future operations?

The Prime Minister: Certainly. I think there is pretty close liaison between the Press and the Service Departments, and I am quite sure that guidance will be given.

Mr. Nally: Is my right hon. Friend aware that General MacArthur is in the unique position of having at one and the same time two tasks—that of commanding the United Nations Forces in Korea, and at the same time of being responsible for a good deal of civil and economic administration in the Far East? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that a number of war correspondents are rather afraid that there is a slight tendency on the part of this brilliant commander to confuse civil and economic censorship with censorship on military and associated operations?

Earl Winterton: On a point of order. Is the Prime Minister responsible for what General MacArthur does? If that is not so, is the hon. Gentleman's Question in order?

Mr. Speaker: As far as I know, the Prime Minister has no responsibility whatever for General MacArthur.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of order. Could you give us any guidance, Sir, as to the responsible Minister to whom we may address Questions on hostilities in Korea? If the Prime Minister has no responsibility for General MacArthur, who has?

Mr. Speaker: Probably one of our Service Departments. They are concerned there.

Mr. Paton: Further to that point of order. In your reply, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) about his reference to General MacArthur in his civilian and economic capacity, and as the representative of the Allied Powers of which the United Kingdom is one, surely a responsible Minister has a responsibility to this House.

Mr. Speaker: General MacArthur is at the moment Commander-in-Chief of our Allied Forces, and, therefore, we should be careful in this matter.

Mr. Keeling: May I ask whether the publication in the British Press of the line to which the Americans were going to retire, which had not been announced by American headquarters, might not have been detrimental?

The Prime Minister: I should rather like notice of any specific question. I am not sure to what the hon. Member is referring.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Snow: On a point of order. In respect of a question from the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) today, at Question Time, I understood you to rule, Mr. Speaker, that in the matter of the conduct of hostilities in Korea, if the name of General MacArthur arose, it would not be proper to answer a Question in this House. If I understand that correctly, what is the position if, as I understand to be the case, the troops in Korea are now under the United Nations flag? Would not Questions on that subject then be the responsibility, not of the Secretaries of State for the Service Departments, but of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought it would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs rather than of the Prime Minister. Questions about the United Nations are generally put to the Foreign Secretary. Anyhow. my protest was made because, after all. General MacArthur is the Commander-in-Chief, and one does not want always to be criticising and stabbing in the back the Commander-in-Chief of the American Forces and our own Forces.

Earl Winterton: May I, in justice to myself, Sir, point out that my point of order related to a question which went

much further than criticizing GeneralMacArthuras Commander-in-Chief? It referred to his administration. It has been constantly laid down that we cannot criticise the administration of anyone not responsible to a Minister.

Mr. Paton: Further to that point of order. On the question which has just been raised by the noble Lord, is it not the case that General MacArthur, in his administration in Japan, is the servant of the whole of the Allied Powers, of which the United Kingdom is one, so that, in all his activities within Japan, he is answerable to us, as one of the Allied Powers, through Questions addressed to the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Speaker: I quite understand that point. It is perfectly correct. It is possible to put these Questions. I only said that I thought that in time of war, if General MacArthur is Commander-in-Chief, it is highly undesirable to stab him, as Commander-in-Chief, in the back.

Mr. Nally: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, with respect, whether you would be kind enough to examine the complications which are bound to arise? There were two Questions on the Order Paper today neither of which had to do so much with the Commander of the United Nations Forces in Korea, as with certain organisation and proceedings in Tokyo, for which General MacArthur also has responsibility in another capacity. May I respectfully ask you whether you would be prepared to consider certain Questions about which we have had some difficulty, and, at such time as may suit your convenience, give us some guidance upon what you would conceive to be proper and right in relation to the situation embodied in the two Questions, on which there was a difference of opinion?

Mr. Eden: May I suggest that the House would think it reasonable, in a time of delicacy like this, that you, Sir, might perhaps ask to see the Questions on the Paper to consider them more seriously—if they concern the Allied Commander—than can possibly be done when they are chance questions and answers?

Mr. Snow: I had no intention of criticising the military capacity of General MacArthur, for whom I have a profound respect in that capacity. But one can


distinguish between military responsibility and responsibility to us as one of the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree that there are two sides to the question. One is the military one, and one is the aspect that General MacArthur is, as it were, our representative in Japan. One has to be very careful. I was thinking entirely of his military responsibility as Commanderin-Chief. I daresay we can think about that further.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL SITUATION

Mr. Gammans: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider making a personal broadcast to the British people explaining the seriousness of the international situation, appealing for recruits for the Territorial Army and the Civil Defence Service and warning the country against the obvious determination of the Communists to stir up industrial unrest and disrupt the productive effort of the nation.

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government do not, of course, underrate the seriousness of the international situation, and I do not think that it is underrated in the country as a whole. I do not, however, consider that the present time is an appropriate one for me to make a personal broadcast.

Mr. Gammans: Does not the Prime Minister recognise the factor of leadership and inspiration in human affairs? Does he realise that the British people know they are about to go into rough weather and wonder if anyone is on the bridge?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Member is quite wrong. I think the Debate on Korea, in which speeches were made from all sides of the House, showed perfectly clearly that the House and the Government fully appreciate the significance of the situation.

Mr. Gammans: All I am asking the Prime Minister is, will he give a lead and inspiration to the British people at this time of crisis?

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EAST (ANGLO-AMERICAN CO-OPERATION)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Prime Minister if he has considered making a personal visit to the United States of

America in the near future in order to co-ordinate fully our joint efforts under the Security Council and to consider common plans for the defence of the Far East.

The Prime Minister: The existing arrangements for communication between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government enable us to maintain close and constant contact on all questions. I do not consider that the need for such a visit, either by myself or by any of my colleagues in the Cabinet. at present arises.

Mr. Gammans: Does not the Prime Minister feel that if he would pay a personal visit, it would not only mean that we should identify ourselves with the American effort, but would be an opportunity of informing the American people that we are sharing the same burdens and fighting the same enemy in Malaya?

The Prime Minister: I do not think this is necessarily the best way of doing that. Our contacts are extremely close with the American Government; there are visits from time to time from both sides, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be visiting America in the course of the autumn

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Petrol-Driven Machines (Grants)

Mr. Perkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of petrol-driven machines used for agricultural operations at the last convenient date, eligible for grants under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Until the details of the scheme to be made under Clause 1 of the Bill have been determined, I cannot state the number of petrol-driven machines which will be eligible for grants, but it is likely to be of the order of 400,000 or 500,000.

Farmhouses (Sale)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that there is a growing practice of selling farmhouses separately, without the attached land, thus reducing the efficiency of the farming unit; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this abuse.

Mr. T. Williams: I am aware of the practice. The only action I could take would be to make an order under Section 86 of the Agriculture Act, 1947. At present I have not received evidence that the practice is sufficiently widespread in any county to justify an order in view of the additional staff which would be required for its operation, but I am keeping the matter under review.

Mr. Johnson: Will the Minister take action if I give him several examples of this malpractice?

Mr. Williams: I will most certainly take into account any information which my hon. Friend gives me.

Fowl Pest

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in order to safeguard the British poultry industry from further outbreaks of fowl pest, he will prohibit the importation of all poultry, except cooked carcases, from countries where this disease has become endemic.

Mr. Nugent: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that over the past two and a half years over 400,000 poultry have either died or been slaughtered as a result of outbreaks of fowl pest; and what steps he is taking to bring this dangerous infection to an end.

Mr. T. Williams: About 165,000 birds have been slaughtered on account of fowl pest during the last 2½ years. I have no precise information about the number that have died, but my Department estimates the total losses during that period, including birds slaughtered, at about 200,000. Under the Poultry Carcases (Importation) Order, 1950, imports of poultry are permitted only from four countries where fowl pest is endemic, and these birds must be eviscerated, marked with the country of origin, and sold only within five areas in England and Wales which are mainly industrial or residential. In addition, veterinary officers of my Department have visited the two countries chiefly concerned and concluded arrangements which should materially reduce the risk of infected carcases being sent to this country. I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food that supplies of poultry would not be adequate, particularly for the Christmas trade, if imports from all countries where fowl pest is endemic were entirely prohibited.

Mr. Hurd: Is it not really time that the Minister took serious and effective action? Otherwise, we shall have fowl pest endemic in this country, too. Will he not redraft his regulations? Does he not realise that what he is now doing is concentrating the plague spots around the towns? Inevitably, the disease will spread to the rural areas?

Mr. Williams: The information at my disposal does not justify that observation. The number of outbreaks in 1949 was 582, and so far this year there have been only 94, thanks to various Orders which we have introduced limiting the movement of birds.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Is the Minister aware that only yesterday there were four new outbreaks in Lancashire alone? Will he reconsider the whole position, especially in regard to the four countries which are now exporting these birds here? If we get a further outbreak here we shall be much shorter of poultry than we should be if we stopped this importation right away.

Mr. Williams: I believe that one outbreak in Lancashire was due to the use of unboiled swill, and I think that the person responsible for it may be in trouble.

Mr. Nugent: Is the Minister aware that the outbreak of which he is speaking was due to a carcase imported from Poland?

Mr. Williams: And probably not boiled.

Mr. Baldwin: Does not the last answer mean that whatever steps can be taken or are being taken to deal with this poultry which is brought in from these countries which are ravaged with this disease, cannot be effective merely by confining it to any particular area? It must be spread by birds or swill, or whatever it may be.

Mr. Williams: Yes, but as I have said, if the remains of the poultry were boiled before it was allowed to be used, these outbreaks would cease.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the Minister aware that all these "ifs" do not get to the root of the matter, and that the only possible remedy in this dangerous situation is absolutely to forbid the importation of these birds from infected countries? In the same way that we have stamped out rabies we can stamp out this disease very quickly.

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to prevent a recurrence of fowl pest in Scotland as a result of the new order permitting imports of certain poultry.

Mr. Snadden: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to prevent the importation of fowl pest into Scotland in view of the serious losses incurred from this disease during the past two and a half years

Mr. T. Williams: The recent series of outbreaks of fowl pest in Scotland appears to have had no connection with imported poultry, and there is some evidence that sea-birds were responsible for spreading the infection. For some time now poultry imported from certain countries in which fowl pest is endemic has not been distributed in Scotland, and the effect of the recent Order is to strengthen and give statutory force to this arrangement. I cannot, of course, prevent the accidental introduction of infection by agencies outside my control, but this arrangement, together with the regulations already in force for controlling the movement of live poultry, should provide adequate safeguards against preventable risks.

Water Schemes, Dorset

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many applications for grant-aided farm water schemes have been received by the Dorset Agricultural Executive Committee since June, 1945; how many have been approved and what is their value; and how many have been completed and what is their value.

Mr. T. Williams: The answer to the first part of the Question is 654; to the second part, 629 and £245,000; and to the third part, 476 and £114,000.

Advisory Service (Staff)

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the present establishment of the National Agricultural Advisory Service for England and Wales; and how many vacancies there were on that establishment at the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. T. Williams: The establishment of the National Agricultural Advisory Service on 30th June, 1950, was 1,465 officers against an approved complement of 1,950.

Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men who have suitable qualifications for this work have been refused appointments on the ground that they were too old, whereas in two cases of which I know they were under 50? Would the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent age is a bar to this service?

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member will put down a Question I will gladly answer it. I can tell him that recruitment is undertaken by means of an annual competition. One has just been held and 159 officers have been recruited out of 880 applicants.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHELLFISH AND PILCHARDS

Mr. G. R. Howard: asked the Minister of Agriculture what aid is to be afforded to shell fishermen and pilchard fishermen owing to the rise in the cost of production, having particular regard to the fact that they are not included for benefit from the proposed subsidy on white fish.

Mr. T. Williams: The definition of white fish will, for the purposes of the subsidy, include pilchards but not shellfish. Shellfish are not a staple food; the catch is small and most of it is taken by methods much less costly than those used for catching fish on which the subsidy will be paid.

Mr. Howard: Is the Minister aware that these small crabbers are suffering from the increased cost of gear and cost of production generally, and does he not think that they should benefit from such a subsidy?

Mr. Williams: No, I do not think so.

Sir T. Dugdale: Can the Minister say when this extension of the subsidy was first announced? It would appear that this extension has not been widely known. It has been announced privately since one of my hon. Friends put down a Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Williams: My recollection is that the Prime Minister answered a Question a week last Tuesday in the House which referred to the subsidy.

Sir T. Dugdale: But not about pilchards and mackerel.

Mr. Williams: I think it first referred to pilchards. I did not mention mackerel by the way.

Mr. Howard: Is the Minister aware that the first announcement was a private one, which was published in a local paper before it was announced in the House?

Mr. Williams: I am not aware of it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: Will the Leader of the House tell us the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 17TH JULY—Supply (22nd allotted Day). Committee: Debate on Education in England and Wales.

Committee and remaining stages of the London Government Bill.

Report and Third Reading of the Allotments Bill.

Report stage of the Navy, Army and Air Expenditure, 1948–49.

TUESDAY, 18TH JULY—Supply (23rd allotted Day), Committee: Debate on the Overseas Food Corporation.

Consideration of Motions to approve the Draft Civil Defence Police Training Regulations and similar Regulations for Scotland.

WEDNESDAY, 19TH JULY—Supply (24th allotted Day), Committee: The subject for debate will be announced later.

Second Reading of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill.

Consideration of Motions relating to the Draft Immunities and Privileges of the Council of Europe Order; the Universal Postal Union Order; and the Transport Controlled Bodies (Compensation to Employees) Regulations.

THURSDAY, 20TH JULY—Supply (25th allotted Day), Committee: Debate on Education in Scotland.

At 9.30 p.m. the Committee stage of all outstanding Votes will be put from the Chair.

Consideration of Motions to approve the Draft Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Scheme; the Agriculture Act (Wool)

Order; the Draft British Wool Marketing Scheme; and the Draft Milk Marketing Scheme Orders relating to Banff and Moray and Orkney.

FRIDAY, 21sT JULY—Committee and remaining stages of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill.

Second Reading of the Public Utilities Street Works Bill [Lords] and Committee stage of the necessary Money resolution.

Further progress will be made with the Medical Bill [Lords].

It may be convenient for me to inform the House that, if all necessary Business has been obtained, it is proposed to Adjourn on Friday, 28th July, for the Summer Recess and meet again on Tuesday, 17th October. The House will realise that this is a provisional statement of the Government's proposals. I will, of course, make a further statement next week.

Mr. Eden: With regard to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's announcement, it is, of course, understood that, as we are only adjourning, the House could be recalled at once, at short notice, should any occasion arise. It is desirable that that should be known to the public.

Mr. Morrison: Certainly. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there is a Standing Order that enables the House to be recalled and, of course, if it is proved necessary in the public interest, the Government would be willing to consider representations on that matter.

Mr. Eden: I have one question about the Business for next week. Last night the Minister of State told us of the Government's hope to publish the Report of the Colonial Development Corporation so that we might perhaps have a Debate if we wished—and no doubt the House would like to have one—before we rise. Can the Leader of the House tell us what is the position and when that Report will be available? I understood that his right hon. Friend told us last night it would definitely be available in time for a Debate.

Mr. Morrison: I must confess that did not know about this, but I will make immediate inquiries and see what can be done.

Mr. Ellis Smith: If I am correct in understanding my right hon. Friend, he said that the Business for Wednesday would be announced later. In view of the increasing tendency for this kind of thing to take place, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he thinks it is fair to the House, is it in accordance with Parliamentary practice, and can he explain to the House why it should occur?

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. It is desirable that hon. Members should know on Thursday what Business is coming, but this is in the hands of the Opposition and I gather that they have a little further consideration to give to it. That is why I am not in a position to announce it. I am very sorry; I am prepared to do so, but in the circumstances I cannot.

Mr. Eden: We regret if any inconvenience is caused. We will give that information by tomorrow. The House will realise that in the closing stages of the Session, when many important matters have to be fitted in, in an international situation of some delicacy, we have to choose with some care how we allot our remaining days. I am sorry.

Sir Ian Fraser: In view of the Conference of the British Medical Association at Southport this week-end, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he can give a day or half-a-day for discussion of a Motion which stands in my name and in the name of others asking for the small hospital in the small town to be preserved for the use of the local people?

[That, in view of the service to the public which is rendered by small hospitals and parts of hospitals in which general practitioners are able to continue to care for their own patients suffering from conditions which are within the general practitioner's scope, this House is deeply concerned at the reduction and proposed reductions in the number of such general practitioner beds and calls upon the Minister of Health to secure the maintenance and where possible an increase in the number of such beds.]

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid not, Sir.

Mrs. Castle: Can my right hon. Friend tell us when we are likely to get the remaining two days of the three days which he informed us would be devoted

in this Session to the discussion of the nationalised industries?

Mr. Morrison: I hope there will be a second day in that respect the week after next and I think—but I cannot be sure that the third day will be during the week in which we come back, before the new Session begins.

Earl Winterton: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us in all parts of the House, irrespective of party, would be deeply concerned if this House adjourned without a discussion on defence, in view of the situation? Will he give further consideration to the point which was put to him last week by the Leader of the Opposition?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Whilst I recognise that there is not much time before the Recess, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can see any possibility of finding time for discussion of a Motion in favour of a Royal Commission on marriage laws which has been signed by rather more than 100 Members on all sides of the House? If it cannot be before the Recess, can he hold out any hope of finding time for it when the House reassembles?

[That this House requests His Majesty's Government to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate and report upon the present state of the marriage laws, and to make recommendations.]

Mr. Morrison: I do not see any prospect of that. I know my hon. Friend is bursting to get into trouble. I am not.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the right hon. Gentleman find time for a Debate on the European Payments Union before the Summer Recess, particularly as the granting of open licences may have a very considerable effect on British agriculture?

Mr. Morrison: I do not very well see that the Government can. I cannot be sure what may come up on Supply, but we are working within restricted limits and I doubt whether I can give a firm undertaking about it.

Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that the Recess is likely to be a long one and that it is very imminent, and in view of


the fact that there are so many hundreds and thousands of people affected by the situation relating to leasehold at the present time, will my right hon. Friend consider whether he cannot give some time before we actually proceed to the Recess to deal with a Motion down in the name of over 120 hon. Members, including myself, in order that we might at least have a moratorium in this matter, if nothing else?

[That this House whilst welcoming the Government's announcement of intended legislation dealing with leasehold reform, is of the opinion that pending the introduction of comprehensive legislation immediate steps should be taken to effect a moratorium on all leases now falling in.]

Mr. Morrison: I promise my hon. Friend that this is not going to be forgotten, but I am not sure that there is much point in having a Debate until we have had time to clarify our minds, a process upon which His Majesty's Government are quite properly busily engaged. I think my hon. Friend had better leave it there and let us hope that something will come along.

Mr. Snadden: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are to get the promised legislation on salmon poaching and illegal fishing in Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: Not this side of the Summer Recess.

Mr. Donnelly: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the extreme urgency of the point made by my hon Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner)?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir; most certainly.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the very long Recess which has been announced and the extreme urgency of this matter of salmon poaching in Scotland, would the right hon. Gentleman consider reducing the holiday in order that this vital legislation could be introduced?

Mr. Morrison: It is not a holiday. It is ridiculous to call it a holiday. It should not be so described. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not let the House of Commons down in that way. It is a Recess in which hon. Members must succour themselves, and contact their constituents, and so on. It is not an abnormal Recess at all. It is not excessive in the least, and nobody would be more disappointed than the hon. and gallant Member if I were to bring the House back a month earlier than necessary.

BILL PRESENTED

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS)

"to amend the law with respect to customs in the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. Jay; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

NATIONAL COAL BOARD

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of the National Coal Board for 1949.
We are to discuss today the Annual Report of the National Coal Board for 1949. 1949 was the third year of their existence. In the third year they were at the beginning of their enormous task: yet people often say that the policy of nationalisation has already been proved to be a failure. There has been a lot of loose talk—not usually substantiated by many facts—about the Coal Board. I want to examine today the charges that are made against the Coal Board in the light of the facts given in this Report.
In the Report the Board are by no means complacent about what they have done. Nor am I. But let us examine one by one the things for which they are blamed and see what their record really is. It is said, first and foremost. that they have failed because they have not got the coal the nation needs. Well, we do need more coal than we are getting. The Board know it and admit it, and so do I. Total output is the vital test by which all else must stand or fall. But let us look fairly and frankly at what they have done.
In 1949, with full employment and the rising productivity of labour, total home consumption of coal, including factories and electricity and gas and railways, but excluding house coal, was 34 million tons more than it was in 1938. We are building a lot of new refineries in Britain. We are going to use a lot more oil. But nine-tenths of British power and fuel will still come from coal. In 1949 the Coal Board produced 5 million tons more coal than in 1948; 28 million tons more than we got in 1945. The whole recovery of Britain since 1945 has been founded on that recovery of British coal. Without that great extra output, without that great effort, disaster, beyond all question, would have stared us in the face.
Should we have got that extra output if coal had not been nationalised? Can we be certain that we could even have got the 174 million tons which we were getting in 1945? Two divisions last year

failed to pay their way. They did much better than in 1948, but still they made a loss. In almost every division there are some pits—there are 467 in all—which still do not pay. What would have happened to those pits if we had gone back to the old system? What would have happened to them if the industry had been drastically decentralised and every area made a separate, independent financial unit, as some people have proposed?
Should we have got the 55 million tons which last year the Coal Board produced from the so-called uneconomic areas? Fifty-five million tons—almost as much as Lord McGowan told us in 1948 we should have lost if the mines had not been nationalised? Anyway, it is certain that it is because the industry has been nationalised, because it has been worked as an integrated whole, because all these pits are part of one financial unit, that we have been sure of this 55 million tons, and that, instead of falling further, total output has risen since 1945 by nearly 30 million tons.
Secondly it is said—and very frequently —that all nationalised industries lose money, that they do not care, that they do not have the profit motive, that they can rely on the taxpayers to see them through. It would unquestionably have been right to have got this extra 30 million tons since 1945, even if by so doing we had made a large financial loss. Indeed, Lord Bruce of Melbourne said the other day that it probably would have been better if we had let the Coal Board make a loss; that we should have given them five or ten years to modernise, re-organise and re-equip the mines before we expected them to show any profit at all. Well, the Act of 1946 gave them no such latitude as that; it said that they must pay their way "on an average of good and bad years.
"
In 1947 they made a stupendous effort to do what Lord Bruce said—to raise output almost irrespective of the cost—and in consequence they made a loss of £23½ million. In 1948, they made a modest surplus of £.1½ million; in 1949, they made a surplus of £9½ million. And that was after they had made all the payments due to the Exchequer in respect of the assets which had been handed over to them by the State, after they had allowed for Profits Tax of £½ million, after they had made additional provision


for workmen's compensation of £4 million, and after they had allowed more generously for depreciation of their capital assets than the previous owners used to do.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Might I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment? I thought that the country would benefit today by a discussion of the Report of the Coal Board, and not by controversy about the merits or demerits of nationalisation. The right hon. Gentleman does no service to the coal industry by again dragging nationalisation into the centre of politics.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Nobody will be more delighted than hon. Members on this side of the House when nationalisation is accepted by all parties, and when nobody tries to make party capital out of it.

Mr. Bracken: What are you doing?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am answering the charges that are constantly made against the nationalisation of the coal industry, and by nobody more than by the right hon. Gentleman himself. I shall give him the facts from the Report for 1949 which answer his charges, and I hope he will listen to them with the patience he always shows.
I was saying that the Coal Board are already halfway towards the liquidation of the loss they made in 1947; they hope to wipe it out this year and to start to build up a reserve. If the Board is regarded purely as a business undertaking it cannot be denied that that is sound finance by any test. A profit of £9½ million in the third year is pretty good, and it makes nonsense of a lot of what the critics say.
It is urged—and I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will urge it today—that the Board have only earned their profit by raising prices—as, of course, private owners would never have done!—that they have done it, in fact, by overcharging their customers, British and foreign,. for the coal they sell. Indeed, it is often said that British industry is handicapped in the markets of the world because, thanks to nationalisation, their costs for fuel and power are so very high. Let us look at that for a moment.
Taking industry in general, as a whole the cost of fuel and power today—gas, electricity and coal together—is something between 1 per cent. and 3 per cent. of total costs. That is just about the same as it was in 1938. If fuel costs have gone up since then, other costs have gone up just as much; indeed, if anything they have gone up more. Between 1938 and April, 1950, the Board of Trade wholesale price index for coal rose by 148 per cent., but over the same period the average increase in the index numbers of manufactures and basic materials was 157 per cent. Leaving out manufactures and coal, the increase in other basic industrial materials was 260 per cent.
Let us look more closely at what has happened since 1946. Between vesting day and April, 1950, the wholesale coal price index rose by 25 per cent.; the average increase of the index numbers for industrial materials and manufactures in the same period was not 25 per cent. but 38 per cent.; the increase for basic industrial materials, excluding coal, was 62 per cent. There is really no answer to these figures. The price of British coal has not risen under nationalisation more than the price of many other commodities that have not been nationalised: it has risen less.

Mr. Peter Roberts: Steel?

Mr. Noel-Baker: British industry is not handicapped by high coal prices as against the outside world. In fact, we have the lowest coal prices in Western Europe.

Mr. Bracken: Lower than the Saar, for instance?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Nor has the Coal Board overcharged their foreign customers. I utterly repudiate that suggestion. The Coal Board have sold our coal abroad because the foreigners want to buy it. They have not extracted the last farthing those people could be made to pay; it would be bad business if they did. Their present prices do not endanger good will for future trade. Their prices are at the world market level—about the same as the price which Poland is charging in the European market and below the price charged for American coal delivered at European ports.
No charge of exploitation can possibly be laid against the Coal Board. They follow the practice of other industries which export British goods; in the national interest they earn as much foreign currency as they rightly can; they have increased their exports in 1949 by three million tons, and they made a splendid contribution to the earning of foreign exchange—£50 million—apart from other earnings on freight and on insurance of cargoes. It is true, however, that if all the coal had been sold in Britain at present internal prices the Board would not have made their present profit. It is true that in future years the level of world prices may come down, and that makes it important to look not only at prices but at costs.
Of course, it is said that, thanks to the Coal Board administration, costs have risen greatly and are far too high. I promised hon. Members the other day at Question Time that I would today discuss the trend of costs per ton since the Coal Board started, and that I would compare them with costs before the war. It is true, as I said then, that for 14 years up to 1948 there was a constant unbroken rise in the costs of producing British coal.
The official published figures show that costs were: in 1935, 13s. 1d; 1938, 16s. 1d.; 1946, 35s. 10d.; 1948, 45s. 6½d. Now those figures are not all on quite the same basis as the present Coal Board figures, but I have had two of the pre-nationalisation years adjusted. In 1938, the cost on the present basis was 15s. 11d., and in 1946 it was 37s. Thus, before the Coal Board took over the cost had risen in nine years by 21s. a ton. In the first two years of the Coal Board's work costs rose by a further 8s. 6½d.
I ask the House to note two things: nearly three-quarters of the rise in costs since 1935 happened before nationalisation, and of the 8s. 6½d. rise since 1946 the greater part, 5s. 5d., is due to higher wages, holidays with pay and other improvements in the conditions of the men. Now will any hon. Member stand up and say that the expenditure of that extra 5s. 5d. has been wrong? Of course not. And if not, we have to pay the bill; it cost the Coal Board £60 million a year.
The basic cause of this rise since 1935 has, of course, been the rise in the

earnings of the miners. In 1935, cash wages were 45s. 5d.; in 1938, 55s. 9d.; in 1948, 157s. 10d. That was up to 1948. Two more things happened in 1949. The average cash earnings of the miners went up by 5s. or more. But the costs per ton for the first time for 14 years came down. They came down by 6d. That may not sound a very formidable sum, but it means £5 million saving on the financial result for 1949—half the Coal Board's surplus.
It is said that even so the costs are far too high because the Coal Board has been so inefficient and so badly run. What does efficiency mean in British coal today? We must go back again to the Reid Report. It means re-equipping and re-organsing the mines. The Reid Report set out the magnitude and complexity of the task. It showed that, while some companies, of course, had been progressive and had a good record, many of the productive units were quite wrong, and the industry was "parcelised" in a most uneconomic way. It showed that many of the pits needed more machinery than they had before—better machinery; more capital investment was required than could be made under the old system. The Board have started on that task of bringing in efficiency by capital investment with vigour and imagination.
In 1948, they spent £25 million on new capital investments; in 1949, £31 million. and, for this year, they have authorised £37.5 million. Could these great sums have been found if the old system had remained? Does anyone believe that it could? What would the rate of interest have had to be? The Coal Board, for the first time for many years, have brought to the mines the new capital they required. Much of the new capital went on new machinery; machinery at the face, better haulage, machinery on the surface, new power and preparation plant. The Board sought, in the first place, to bring the coal cutting equipment in every pit up to the highest "conventional" standards of the past, but they have also made a lot of progress with the testing of new machines.
They were experimenting with power loaders. With some of them they are still testing the prototypes—the Gloster getter, the German plough, the Joy Continuous Miner and others. With the Meco-Moore they are further forward. In December, 1949, they had 51 of these machines at


work, turning out coal at the rate of four million tons a year. The normal crew of a Meco-Moore is six. A normal face employs about 50 men, including rippers, packers, supervisors and the rest. The O.M.S. at the face is 6.7 tons. There is another new British cutter-loader which has no undercutting, no shot-firing, and no men working under an unsupported roof. That means less dust than even with the old hand pick, more large coal and fewer accidents. The crew of the machine is five with 30 men at the face. It wins 100,000 tons of coal a year. It may be possible in a relatively early future to get six or seven million tons of coal—more large coal—by this machine. In a longer future, it might do better still.
In 1947, the haulage problem was more acute than the problem of the face. The Reid Committee made it clear that, in their view, it was the worst bottle-neck of all. To a considerable extent it is a long-term problem—the driving of new level roadways to take larger mine cars drawn by locomotives. Making roadways is a long and a costly business; so is replacing the equipment. The underground railways had 60 different gauges of varying widths and tubs varying in capacity from 3 cwt. to 3 tons. The Board have to standardise this equipment. They have brought in many miles of new conveyor belts and replaced others, and brought in more locomotives. The statistics show that, while many of the major works have not yet begun to give returns, nevertheless, haulage in general has already notably improved.
On the surface, two main requirements are the introduction of new power plant, and the increase of plant for the preparation and the washing of coal. The Board's long-term policy is to install electric power instead of steam on the surface. In the Rhondda, they have done it, and they have saved 4½d. a ton on costs. Before 1947, the average capacity of the preparation plant was about 80 tons an hour. The new plants have capacities up to 600 or even 800 tons an hour. Since vesting day, 38 new plants have been brought into operation, and at the end of 1949, 27 more plants with an annual capacity of 9½ million tons were under construction. As an interim measure, the Board have sent a lot of coal from collieries where there are no washeries to collieries where

there are. That is very costly, but it has helped to clean the coal.
Apart from improved mechanisation on the surface and underground, the Board have re-planned and re-organised a lot of pits. They have joined up pits that used to be divided and made arrangements for the more efficient working of the coal. I will give one illustration. At one pit, Manvers Main, in Yorkshire, they are spending nearly £4 million. When the work is finished, it will raise output from 2¼ million tons per annum to well over 3 million tons.
I ask the House to note the salient facts about this capital investment. Much of it has given a quick short-period return. That is why output has increased and O.M.S. (output per man shift) gone up. The House is familiar with the figures: In 1938 they were 1.14 tons; in 1945 down to 1.00 ton; in 1948, back to 1.11 tons; in 1949, 1.16 tons, and for the first quarter of this year 1.20 tons. I know that hon. Members opposite prefer the output per man year. I will give the figures for that, too. O.M.Y. has risen so far from 246 tons in 1945 to 282 tons in 1949. I know that the hon. Member who takes so great an interest in opencast coal will be glad to know that so far in 1950 O.M.Y. is running at about 294 tons—well over the figure for 1938.
These figures show that much of the capital investment has given a quick return. But many of the schemes, on which a great deal of money has been spent, will only be giving a return towards the end of this year, or next year, or later on. But we can say, I think, with the greatest assurance, that within a period of a few years they give us the hope of more coal—a lot more coal—at lower cost. If we had had none of this development work, output, as the Coal Board show in their Report, would inevitably have gone down and costs, of course, would inevitably have greatly risen.
I think that is the real answer to what is said against the Coal Board about man-power. They have shown already by the schemes which they have carried through, what great economies of manpower can be made. The figures which I gave about the cutter-loaders show what saving there may be in the future at the face, if these new machines develop as


we hope. Better haulage releases many men. At Markham, in the East Midlands, trunk conveyors were installed and 100 men were freed in one pit for upgrading to the face. At Ellington, in the North, one diesel locomotive released 30 men to go to the face. By the end of 1949, the National Coal Board had put 330 new locomotives in the mines.
These are only illustrations of how more coal is being got with fewer men. They show why the National Coal Board are not worried about the long-term manpower problem. Of course, there is in some coalfields, but not all, a short-term problem of getting men. There has been a heavy fall in the total manpower since January, 1949. I will give the House the figures. They are: January, 1949, 727,000 men, December, 709,000 men and, today, 698,000 men.
These figures may seem alarming, but I ask the House to note these things. In 1949, the National Coal Board dismissed from their service 8,000 men who were unsuited to the mines. In 1948, they had recruited 8,500 Polish and other European workers. In 1949, it was only 2,500, which is 6,000 fewer, and last year it was none at all. In January this year the ring fence was lifted, and men who wanted to leave the industry were free to do so, and several thousand did. In 1949, and still today, the men and the Board are much more careful about the new recruits they take on. As the Report says, miners must be men of "good physique and sound sense," which is quite true. In the south, they accepted last year only 65 per cent. of the new recruits who offered to join their services.
Having said that, I do not disguise the fact that the National Coal Board now want more men. They are taking vigorous measures to recruit the right type of miner and prevent the wastage of the better men. They are also striving, with the National Union of Mineworkers, to reduce absenteeism, which is less now than it was a year ago. Many unjust things are said about the miners, but the vast majority of them are doing a splendid job, although there are still bad attendees. There are some pits in which absenteeism is much too high. As I have said before, I hope that the efforts of the National Coal Board and of the National Union of Mineworkers will together reduce absenteeism.
There are some other encouraging features about the manpower situation. The recruitment of juveniles this year is as much as it was last. The number of trained ex-miners who are coming back is greater. The quality of the men, thanks to the action of the National Coal Board, is constantly improving, and the rate of the fall of manpower is slowing down; indeed, if the present trend continues, the manpower may well be higher at the end of 1950 than the total forecast in the Economic Survey for the year. I believe that as time goes on, as the men gain confidence, we shall get more recruits, and as they form better habits attendance will improve.
No doubt it is said—it has often been said outside, "The National Coal Board have not won the confidence of the men; that is just the point. The National Coal Board are too remote, and that is why men are going and why attendance still leaves much to be desired." Of course their labour relations, as the Reid Report says, were the toughest problems they had to face, but I ask the House to consider what the National Coal Board have done to win the confidence of the men.
Health and safety have always been a grievous problem in the mine. We always thought that greater safety ought to be a natural by-product of nationalisation. I am not saying anything against the previous owners, but the National Coal Board are able to maintain a national safety service, and the best practices now spread quickly to other pits. Higher standards of scientific control are very easily applied. In fact, last year the figures of killed and seriously injured were a record low.
If over the last 11 years the figures of killed and seriously injured had been the same as they were last year, it is probable that there would be 4,000 to 5,000 more men in the pits today. As I have said, last year was a record low, and I am glad to be able to say that in the first half of 1950 there have been 40 fewer deaths and 100 fewer seriously injured than there were a year ago. Intensified large-scale work is going on to suppress dust diseases, and in due course results are sure to come.
The National Coal Board attach supreme importance to consultation. They have it at every level—national,


divisional, area and pit. It is safe to say that it is more developed in British coal than in any other major industry in the world. Of course, consultation is patchy, but it has made great progress in the last 12 months. No one who sits and listens to the deliberations of a pit consultative committee can doubt that these committees have begun to play a tremendous part in bringing a new spirit into the mines.
The National Coal Board also attach supreme importance to miners' welfare. They have made a very deep impression on the miners by adding of their own free will 4d. per ton to the statutory penny for the Welfare Fund. They have relieved the Fund of the cost of pithead baths and already two-thirds of the miners have pithead baths. I believe that time will show that their ladder plan of education is, up to date, their most important single work.
I ask whether any of these things could have happened if coal had not been nationalised. Does anyone seriously believe that there would have been more manpower if the National Coal Board had not been in charge? The acid test of labour relations is the number of days lost by industrial disputes. The House knows the figures—on the average many millions every year for 20 years between the wars; 710,000 on the average from 1947 to 1949, and 110,000 only in the first six months of 1950.
I have tried to summarise the facts about the work of the National Coal Board, and to show, in particular, what they did in 1949. They have increased the output by nearly 30 million tons since 1945, and thereby saved us from disaster. They have raised the O.M.S. and the O.M.Y. They have begun the longterm task of capital investment which the Reid Report describes. They have made a profit on their last year's work. They have raised wages and done much more for welfare. They have sold their coal at reasonable prices. They have begun to reduce their costs. They have revolutionised the labour relations in the mines.
They have present anxieties—of course they have—but rising hopes. The number of students in the mining schools of the universities is double what it was. The miners feel that they are respected. The miners' wives are ready for their sons

to follow in their fathers' footsteps and go down the pits. That is the greatest tribute to the National Coal Board, and it is the greatest guarantee for the future of British coal, and thereby, as I believe, for British leadership in world affairs.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: The Minister of Fuel and Power has done no service to the coal industry, or, indeed, to the public by dragging the old controversies of nationalisation into the day that was meant for the examination of the Annual Report of the Coal Board. We hoped that this Debate could have been conducted without reference either to private enterprise or to nationalisation. That hope has disappeared after the Minister's speech; nor has the Minister created a good precedent by speaking today as the proprietor of the Coal Board.
We are told that the Coal Board is set apart from party politics but about one-third of the Minister's speech was given over to party politics. If we are considering the Coal Board's Report, why should the Minister drag in his propaganda about nationalisation? It was the Minister's duty to present the Report and leave it to the House to discuss it. There are many hon. Members on both sides with a vast knowledge of the industry, who would like to discuss the Board's Report on its merits. They are not very interested in nationalisation or private enterprise: at least I hope they are not.
The Minister's speech makes it clear that he regards the Coal Board as his creature. It was a deeply disappointing speech. It ignored the grim facts of the present coal situation and flatly contradicted the very serious statement made by the Chairman of the Coal Board, Lord Hyndley. It was reeking in super-optimism and positive encouragement to elements of the National Union of Mineworkers, who are making heavy demands on the Coal Board now—demands that had been flatly rejected by Lord Hyndley and the Board. The unofficial strikers tomorrow will applaud the Minister's speech. He has done much disservice to the Board and to the coal industry.
The report of the Coal Board is a mine of information and a statist's paradise. If the Board could produce coal in quantity and quality equal to their statistics, how


happy we should be on both sides of the House. The Report has been criticised because of its complacency. I admit that parts of it are complacent, but it contains much that must cause grave anxiety to considering persons. The Report only deals with the affairs of the industry in 1949. Whether the Board's Report was too complacent or not, there was nothing complacent about the statement made by Lord Hyndley on 30th April last, a statement, if I may remind the Minister, that was absolutely contradicted by him today.
What did Lord Hyndley say?
Either we get more coal or the whole basis of British life may be threatened. Things can- not go on like this,
and yet everything was good in the garden according to the Minister.
Unless the coal industry does a great deal better than we are doing now the odds against Britain in the struggle for new prosperity will be lengthened.…. I doubt if the country realises the gravity of the position.…. It is time that the country realised the hard facts of the position.
Would anyone listening to the Minister's speech today believe that it is likely to make the country realise the hard facts of the position?
In a speech at Llandudno last week, the former General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, now a member of the Coal Board, told the Miners' Conference that in the next five years they might have to face wage reductions in the coal industry. He also declared—as I think rightly—that the next 12 months or so might show a big change in the British coal industry's export position. We had nothing about the export position this afternoon from the Minister.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: On the contrary, I specifically stated that world prices might come down.

Mr. Bracken: The Minister knows now that the Coal Board are anticipating a drop in exports next year, and reasons for that I shall give before I finish. To be fair to the Coal Board, there has been nothing complacent about the recent speeches of its members. On the contrary, one might almost say that they contained a strain of defeatism. Truly, the members of the Board are men of sorrow and acquainted with grief. Labour relations are becoming increasingly unhappy.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Mr. Noel-Baker indicated dissent.

Mr. Bracken: Does the Minister deny it?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes.

Mr. Bracken: Will the Minister get up and deny it?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, of course I will. I said specifically that they are getting much better.

Mr. Bracken: That is why the redoubtable Mr. Homer, accompanied by the vice-president of his union, set out to try to get the Scottish miners to return to work. Of course, the Minister knows that labour relations are becoming increasingly unhappy.

Miss Jennie Lee: Who is controversial now?

Mr. Bracken: if that is regarded as a controversial remark, let me make a point which will be accepted on all sides of the House. Coal is dear, scarce, and dirty. I am glad to find such general agreement. Absenteeism, if the trade union leaders are to be regarded as reliable authorities, is a perpetual plague. The threat of foreign competition looms larger. The financial condition of the Board is precarious. The fact has been fully admitted by the Chairman that without charging higher prices to overseas customers, the Board would have made a heavy loss last year. Many other troubles afflict the National Coal Board, including the increasing desire of old customers to substitute oil for coal. The members of the Board have my sympathy. Job led a sheltered life by comparison with theirs.
The question we must ask ourselves today is what can be done to restore health to this industry, upon which Britain rose to industrial greatness. It is difficult indeed to answer this question and it will never be answered if we waste our energies now by arguing about the advantages or disadvantages of nationalistation. The moving finger has written and we accept that change. The coal industry must be salvaged quickly if Britain is to hold her own as a great industrial power. I doubt if it can ever be salvaged under the present constitution of the National Coal Board. This is no fault of the members of the Coal Board. They perhaps. like politicians, are not without their failings. The fault rests squarely on the politicians who hurriedly created the National Coal Board.
A few years ago Parliament, in its wisdom or unwisdom but exercising its undoubted power, decreed "Let there be nationalisation." A Bill was all that was required to do the trick. Ministers, having got their Bill through Parliament, decreed "Let there be management." It is easy for politicians to produce Bills in abundance. Alas, we have not the same power to produce management. In fact, the Minister of Defence, the first holder of the office of Fuel and Power, has told us that when coal was nationalised no plan existed for the management of this vast and complicated industry.
We hold that the industry can never prosper under the rigid organisation laid down in the Act of nationalisation. This organisation may be described as the crudest of Heath Robinson machines. It is probably the worst example of over-centralisation known to man. A great part of the work now being so slowly and painfully done by the National Coal Board in London, ought, of course, to be dealt with in the areas. The regional boards are an absurd anomaly. The Minister might agree with me that they could be well described as a litter of bureaucracies. They are, in fact, mere power misers. They and the top-heavy National Coal Board are a big impediment to the management of the industry. We have constantly pressed for a sweeping measure of devolution in the management of the industry. I believe that many miners in this country share that belief, and so, I think, do a number of hon. Members opposite.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Blyton (Houghton-le-Spring): Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that devolution should be brought about, and that the area boards should go in for district competition such as we had before?

Mr. Bracken: If the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great regard as we had to sit together during our 72-hour deliberations on the Coal Bill, will only listen, he will discover what my plan is. We think that management should be vested in little more than a score of area boards which should have a large measure of home rule. Full executive power should be given to area general managers. The area boards suggested by us would be manageable units in which the badly-

needed qualities of initiative and energy could be quickly discovered and encouraged. Of course, the area boards should be based upon the old producing districts of pre-nationalisation days.
I do not think that membership of the area boards should be in the patronage of the Minister of Fuel and Power, more particularly after hearing his speech this afternoon, or in the patronage of any Minister of Fuel and Power. Appointments should be made by a reformed Coal Board, after consultation with area interests. Area boards should be encouraged to co-opt—a power they have not now—the best men they can within their areas. This should lead to a fairly rapid promotion in all the areas and that would be a great encouragement to ability and energy. There is little encouragement to ability and energy under the present system.
By the transference of many of the present powers of the National Coal Board to area boards, Lord Hyndley and the Coal Board, would be freed from a mountain of detail and could give undivided attention to large issues of policy. The Coal Board should be responsible for financial supervision, for the creation of the reserves which are vitally necessary to the industry, and for the research upon which the future of the industry so greatly depends. Many hon. Gentlemen opposite will perhaps agree with me that the by-products of coal are at least as important as the article itself, but are not now being developed with sufficient vigour and imagination. The reason is that the National Coal Board are engaged in using reams, not to say miles, of paper.
Coal is the only great natural resource possessed by Britain. Let me say, by way of digression, how profligate we are in consuming it. A great deal of our coal production is wasted. It goes up in smoke which is harmful to the health and amenities of the land.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Was not that wastage indiscriminate, uncontrolled and almost unnoticed for more than a century before nationalisation?

Mr. Bracken: Yes, but it is happening still under the wonderful auspices of the Minister of Fuel and Power.
Another important task for a reformed Coal Board is much wider medical research. Silicosis is a horrible disease,


but if diagnosed early it can be cured. The recent advances in treatment are extremely encouraging. I know something about this matter in mining operations in other parts of the world, and I am surprised that a much greater drive has not been put behind the campaign against silicosis.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I should like to know the right hon. Gentleman's authority for the statement that silicosis can be cured in the early stages, if taken in time.

Mr. Bracken: My authority is that of a considerable number of persons whom I have seen and who might have died as a result of the disease had it not been checked early. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may take no interest in this matter, but I am pressing the necessity for the National Coal Board to study recent advances in treatment, because these are highly encouraging. A preliminary, or an essential, to this treatment is that every miner should be periodically X-rayed by the new and quite easily managed process worked successfully in the United States, South Africa, and other countries.
No effective reform of the constitution of the Coal Board can be made without re-defining its relationship with the Government. That indeed is made clear by the Minister's speech this afternoon. No one can pierce the mystery of the relationship between the Coal Board and the Minister of Fuel and Power. Ministers have power to give instructions to the Board and to influence the Board in many subtle ways. Today the Minister and the Board are sickly Siamese twins, and their relationship is altogether harmful to the mining industry. If Parliament agrees that it must face the fact that we must radically improve the constitution of the Coal Board, and must try to do so before the Labour relations become worse and before we price coal, and therefore many other British industries, out of old-established markets, one of its duties must be to make the Coal Board much more independent of Ministerial control or Ministerial blandishments.
Before I deal as quickly as I can with some of the important points in the Board's Report for 1949, I want once again to repeat that there is no use tinkering with the odd organisation so hurriedly

created after the Act of nationalisation. I agree with Lord Hyndley that "things cannot go on like this," and with the statement of the Vice-Chairman of the National Coal Board, Sir Arthur Street, that "The Board is trying to make honey before properly building their hive." What an admission of the need for drastically reorganising the National Coal Board! Why, Lord Hyndley's speech and Sir Arthur Street's statement are far more severe condemnations of nationalisation than any thing ever said on this side of the House.
I want now to say a few words about output. This is a most important aspect of the coal industry. There is nothing encouraging in the Board's reference to output. Sad indeed is the recollection that output per man-year in 1939 was 302 tons, and 10 years later that is, last year—the output was 281 tons, despite the fact that during the last few years a great amount of labour-saving machinery has, to the great expense of the Board and the taxpayer, been installed in the mines.

Mr. Pryde: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many new pits were sunk in the 10 years?

Mr. Bracken: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to go on with my speech he will, I hope, have full opportunity to deal with that later.

Mr. James Glanville: How does the taxpayer come into this? Is not the National Coal Board and the nationalised industry self-supporting?

Mr. Bracken: The Coal Board does not claim to be self-supporting at present because it still owes a large sum of money to the Treasury. Hon. Gentlemen must wait until that is paid off before they make any such declaration. The taxpayer has to stanch the losses of the Treasury.
The late Minister of Fuel and Power often said that output per man-year was not the best test. How often have we heard from the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of State for Economic Affairs that output per man-year is not really a good test. I think that at the time that he made that statement the National Coal Board probably agreed with him; at any rate, they did not dare


dissent from him. We happen to hold that it is the best of all tests, and if we want any reinforcement for our opinion we can turn to the National Coal Board, for they have been converted to the merits of this test. In the version of their Report sent out to employees—not the one given to Members of Parliament—

Mr. Noel-Baker: Both have been sent to Members of Parliament.

Mr. Bracken: But both have not been
sent to the miners.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Copies of the full Report have gone to all members of pit consultative committees.

Mr. Bracken: There are about 730,000 miners and I shall have a word to say about the consultative committees in a minute. I would remind the Minister that in the popular version of the Report, the following statement appears:
The most important productivity figure of all is output per man year.… Here the record is not too good.
I shall leave it at that.
Now I want to say a word about quality. I recognise that there has been some improvement in the quality of coal delivered to industry but it still abounds in dirt, slate and other strange stuff. The coal delivered to housewives is enough to break up or set on fire many a home. The best description which I have read of the coal delivered to British homes is to be found in a speech made last year by Mr. Thomas, the Board's deputy director of marketing. Mr. Thomas said:
We are driven to send to the domestic market qualities we should never get accepted in normal times. We are doing our best to 'allocate' the inferior coals in fair proportions.
What a tribute to the Coal Board!

Mr. Slater: It is fair shares for all.

Mr. Bracken: It is not fair shares for all; it is dirt and dust for all. I cannot better this description of the lot of British homes who must take the costly, ghastly coal produced by the Board.
The Minister made some very tactful —some people might have thought them disingenuous—references to prices this afternoon. I want now to deal with the home price policy of the Board. Some

illuminating figures were given in another place by Lord Bilsland, an eminent Scottish industrialist known to many hon. Members, more particularly right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me when I say that there are few more public-spirited men in Scotland than Lord Bilsland, and that is saying a lot. I commend Lord Bilsland's authority to the House by reminding hon. Gentlemen opposite that he has been most worthily raised to the peerage by the present Prime Minister. Here is a quotation from a report of what Lord Bilsland has said about coal prices:
The price, said Lord Bilsland, which the Scottish steel industry was asked to pay for coal delivered to the works during 1949 was 54s. 9d. per ton compared with 18s. 7d. per ton during 1939—that is, the price was nearly three times greater.

Mr. Blyton: But were the wages?

Mr. Bracken: What a handicap on British industry in the buyers' market ahead. The British housewife knows to her cost that she is equally at the mercy of the Coal Board's price policy. I should like the Minister to explain, if he can, the meaning of some of the broad hints which have been given by members of the Coal Board that the cost of domestic coal may again increase. Is there to be no end to this process of government monopolies pushing up the cost of living? Today the consumer has no protection against nationalised monopolies who can conceal their lack of managerial skill or their desire to appease the more extreme elements in the unions by remorselessly raising their prices against the customer. the customer being the British industrialist and the British housewife; indeed, the whole British public, for unfortunately we are all the compulsory customers of the Coal Board. The Minister made some reference to consumers' councils, and pointed with some pride to his litter of consumers' councils as protectors—

Mr. Noel-Baker: I was talking about the consultative committees between the Coal Board and the miners for consultation on the conduct of the industry.

Mr. Bracken: I am glad to hear from the Minister that he admits that the consumers' councils are not even worth while mentioning in his speech. I think he was absolutely right. As protectors of the


consumer, consumers' councils are about as effective as ageing rabbits whose teeth have been pulled out by the Minister of Health in person.
Now I shall ask a question to which I shall provide the answer. Who appoints the consumers' councils, which were described by the predecessor of the Minister as the public's only protector against the price policies of his own Department and his hand-picked nominees on the Coal Board? "Alice in Wonderland" contains nothing so wonderful as these Government contraptions called consumers' councils. Who, do hon. Members think, adorns the centre of the two most important consumers' councils that were created for their independence of the Coal Board and for their force in ventilating the grievances of the consumers to the Coal Board? None other than the Vice-Chairman of the National Coal Board, Sir Arthur Street That is a fine consultative council.
These farcical consumers' councils should be ended and replaced by a really independent and effective body modelled on the Transport Tribunal. The Transport Tribunal is an inheritance, and a good one, from the reign of Queen Victoria. [Laughter.] Yes, indeed. it has been a great help to the travelling public and has exercised some real authority over the railways in the past and under nationalisation.
Now I want to say something about consumption. All I need say about the cheap and abundant coal promised by the nationalisers is to read an extract from a speech made by the Chairman of the Scottish Division of the Coal Board:
Domestic consumers are still making do with an amount which I believe would have been described before the war as impossibly inadequate
Could you find a worse condemnation of the Coal Board than that made by its Scottish Divisional Chairman? The Minister talked a good deal about exports —[An HON. MEMBER: "You said he did not"] Wait a minute. The Minister talked a good deal about exports, about the success of the Coal Board in maintaining what he called fair prices. It all depends on what he calls a fair price. I say this about the export policy of the Coal Board. Alas, how many golden opportunities have been missed during the last three years. During this century

Britain exported annually about three times as much coal as we exported last year. What a deterioration in our affairs. And we are still casting away opportunities that may never recur.
Today's "Times"—a paper not particularly unfriendly to the Government —contains another warning of our folly in disappointing foreign customers. It says that allocations of definite quantities of coal to be shipped by particular dates have not been fulfilled. It goes on to say that British ships, which could have carried coal, have been sent from this country in ballast. In the absence of British coal cargoes, some of our ships have been able to go Rotterdam, there to load German coal for Italy and other destinations. I could give many examples to supplement that statement made in "The Times" of the failure of Britain to supply good export markets. The world is full of disillusioned consumers of the National Coal Board, people who have been allowed to believe that they could expect deliveries of coal and have not got them. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies tonight, will tell us exactly what the Government of Eire said about the promises of the National Coal Board?

Mr. Murray: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? Paragraph 251 of the Report, which is what we are discussing I understand, says definitely:
In 1949 three million tons more coal were exported than in 1948, and there had to be more sampling and analysis of cargoes at the docks. In the Northern Division 1,500 cargoes of coal were tested, compared with 1,000 in 1948. In the South-Western Division 900 cargoes were tested—double the number in 1948; some 140 cargoes of patent fuel were sampled also. There were few complaints from foreign buyers about the quality of the coal they received.

Mr. Bracken: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he does not appear to have taken in what I have been trying to point out, that our coal exports in 1949 were nearly 200 per cent. lower than they were in the average annual exportation of this century.

Mr. Murray: All I was wanting to raise with the right hon. Gentleman was that there are few complaints from foreign buyers, which is the opposite of what he was saying.

Mr. Bracken: Perhaps in a few moments the hon. Gentleman will quote another part of the Report to show that the coal exports in 1948 were better than in 1947 when we had the famous Shinwell freeze-out. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would take some interest in the fact that we are grossly failing to supply former good export markets. Today we are positively advantaging our German, Polish and other competitors. We are giving them their opportunity, and hon. Gentlemen opposite are supporting the Government in that policy. Was there ever such industrial folly?
We are handing over well-tried, old-established markets to competitors and it will be exceedingly hard to regain them. Let me say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that many miners who sent hon. Gentlemen to this House will resent the kind of interruption made by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Murray). Apparently it does not matter if the Germans and the Poles have a better opportunity of taking our markets away—

Mr. Murray: There was unemployment because the markets went in 1920.

Mr. Bracken: We must expect lively competition not only from European exporters but also from Commonwealth countries like South Africa, which can produce clean coal at a cost that can be said to compete with British prices even though the coal must be brought 6,000 miles by sea. I warn hon. Gentlemen opposite to weigh well the dangers of our present situation. By failing to produce enough coal we are gradually helping our competitors, and the day will come when the miners will rue that policy.
Now I want to say a word or two on the Minister's remarks about mechanisation, which were extremely interesting. As a matter of fact, only last Monday the right hon. Gentleman spoke rapturously of a new all-British machine, the Sampson stripper, which, he declared, would win 100,000 tons of coal a year with only five men at the face—

Mr. Noel-Baker: Five men on the machine.

Mr. Bracken: I am quoting from the newspapers.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It was a slip in the newspapers. It was my fault. I let it go out in the wrong form. It was five men on the machine and 30 at the face.

Mr. Bracken: I am sorry this is another "plot" story—

Mr. Noel-Baker: —It was my fault.

Mr. Bracken: —but this statement comes from a handout to the Press. How long are we to go on with Ministers who, when they are proved to have been wrong in their public statements, cast the blame on the Press?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The right hon. Gentleman really must allow me to say that I have just said, that it was entirely my fault. The handout did say "at the face"; it should have said "on the machine." I have given the House the proper figures this afternoon.

Mr. Bracken: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I very much hope that he will shortly be transferred to the War Office in order to set a good example to other Ministers.
The Minister also declared that in time 40 million tons could be won by this machine with a labour force of only 4,000. That is fine news, and we on all sides ought to rejoice to hear it. Will the Minister now tell us whether the unions have agreed to work the Sampson stripper and the other labour-saving machinery which he mentioned? Have they agreed to work it all out?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, they have agreed to work every machine that is being worked and to carry forward every experiment that is being made.

Mr. Bracken: Full out?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, full out.

Mr. Bracken: This is the best news we have had for a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheer up."] It means, of course, a complete reversal of the mulish attitude of many in the mining industry to mechanisation.

Mr. Tom Brown (Ince): Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of any one occasion when the miners refused to work improved machinery in the mines if the conditions were commensurate with the safety required to work that machine?

Mr. Bracken: I cannot answer that question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh:]— unless the hon. Member will give me a specific instance.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman made a general statement. On that I have questioned whether he could give to the House any date or time when the miners refused to operate any machine, provided that safety conditions were what they desired.

Mr. Bracken: I am going to make an assertion that will anger the hon. Gentleman even more. During the last few years vast sums have been spent on mechanising mines and, alas, many of these costly machines have not been fully worked. Does the Minister deny that?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, I do.

Mr. Bracken: With the authority of the Coal Board?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes.

Mr. Bracken: Good. We shall read some supplementary corrections tomorrow.
Has the Minister at last obtained a clear understanding from the unions to put an end to restrictive practices? I ask the House to note the statements by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. He tells us that the unions—the National Union of Mineworkers and others—in the industry have now agreed to abolish all restrictive practices. [An HON. MEMBER: "He never said that."] It is well within the recollection of the House that he did, and I must say that this is a tremendous reform. How delighted we are—[An HON. MEMBER: "You look it."]—and I hope that every other industry will follow suit, because there have been too many men with Luddite views in the coal and other industries.

Mr. Padley: On the owners' side.

Mr. Bracken: I hope that the hon. Member will have the chance to make a speech later on. I have some sympathy with the attitude of some miners to restrictive practices which have now, happily, been abolished by the Ministers, —a masterly development. I beg of them, however, to remember that the machine is the friend of man, and, above all, of

the miner. It is his best means of maintaining and expanding his standard of living, as American workers have abundantly proved.
Lord Hyndley was right when he said that for lack of coal the whole basis of English life may be threatened. Workers in our export industries will suffer unless we produce plentiful coal at reasonable prices, and the workers that will suffer most are the miners themselves, for they have most at stake. I wish that some of them showed a greater awareness of this and I wish that the National Coal Board had been more successful in proving it to them. Windy exhortations from the headquarters of the National Coal Board, over-looking Buckingham Palace Gardens, merely irritate the miners. The miners are fed to the teeth with exhortations. The best way of securing cooperation from the miners is to give them opportunities for contact with a boss they can see. [Laughter] Is the hon. Member for Durham, North-West, laughing?

Mr. Murray: The miner lost that a long time since.

Mr. Bracken: What an attack on the officials of the National Coal Board! The hon. Member had better be careful or he may lose the Whip. The mandarins in Hobart House and on the regional boards are about as well known to most miners as the Lama of Tibet.
To sum up, the management of this great industry should be brought nearer to the pits, and this can be done only by a radical devolution of responsibilities from the National Coal Board and the regional boards—the latter litter, of course, should be abolished—to manageable areas. Until this is done, there can be no health in the industry.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Henry White: It is only on rare occasions, Mr. Speaker, that I try to catch your eye. This afternoon, once more in the history of this Parliament, we have had the pleasure and the entertainment of listening to the right hon. Member for Bourne mouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken). He has come into the fray once more with a bladder and a feather. He has lambasted the Coal Board with the bladder and he has tried to tickle the


Minister with the feather. If he were as tricky with his feet as he is with his tongue, then in the theatrical world he would be billed as a "terpsichorean eccentric." In the coal mining villages of Derbyshire we have a quaint saying which goes something like this:
 If there wasn't such as him, there wouldn't be all sorts.
This afternoon the right hon. Member has made the charge that the Minister in his speech, which the right hon. Member described as almost a recitation of the Report, had done no service to the Coal Board. I have listened many times and in many Committees to the right hon. Member and to no one connected with any nationalised undertaking has he at any time done any service. Then the right hon. Gentleman made the inference that we on this side are this afternoon interested in the Report, and not in nationalisation. Friends and foes.—

Mr. Bracken: And Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. White: There is no reflection on Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Let me say this, if any one is grateful for the intrusion of nationalisation, it is not only the miners and their wives in the mining villages, but also tradesmen and everyone connected with village life. Since 1942 the same story about ugly relationships in the coal mining industry have been repeated from the other side of the House while all the time we of the industry have been trying our best to get a better state of affairs in the industry than existed when I was in it many years ago. When hon. Members opposite make these charges against us we are ready to refute them.
I have not time to cover all the points made by the right hon. Member, but I honestly think the charge of absenteeism, 'which everyone regrets is happening to the present extent, should be answered. The local officials in the N.U.M., the Minister and the Coal Board regret it, but it is surprising that there should be this keen interest in absenteeism in this House when the figures have gone up and down over the years and when even while the Minister was discussing this Report there were not more than 25 to 30 hon. Members opposite who thought fit to be here to listen. On the question of output, I ask the right hon. Member, if he is

definite that that is the determining factor, would he suggest we should do away with the five-day week, because there has been an increased output per man-shift during the last few years.

Mr. Bracken: I was quoting the statement made by the Coal Board and that question, therefore, should be addressed to the Coal Board which, no doubt, will give the hon. Member an answer. I have no responsibility for the Coal Board; I would clean it up pretty quickly if I had.

Mr. White: It is a fact that on many occasions that point has been put forward from hon. Members opposite, but we maintain developments are going in the right direction now we have arrived at the point where there is increased output per man-shift.
There are many features of the Report which give us pleasure, especially those of us in the coal mining community. The Minister mentioned that a further £4 million had been set aside for increased provision for workmen's compensation. This has come about through a rearrangement of the affairs of the industry because the liability took place between the vesting day and the passing of the 1948 Act. We in the industry are glad of that and we are also pleased that in the Report it is proved that output has gone up by five million tons more than in 1948. The output per man-shift at the coal face and overall is above pre-war level and that is something of which we ought to be proud. The Minister also mentioned the rising cost. We are also justly proud that that has been stayed although only to the extent of 6d. a ton.
My right hon. Friend mentioned that capital expenditure was to the tune of £31 million in improvements and additions against £25 million in 1948. The Board report that they earmarked £63 million for new projects. I maintain that, while that is enterprising to a degree, it is not sufficiently enterprising in view of what the industry has to face in the future. We are pleased with the exploration work; only a nationalised body could have undertaken the huge number of borings which have taken place during this one year. That is an expensive job and I am glad that the industry have been able to face up to it. One regrets that, though 50-odd Meco-Moore machines


have been installed, they cannot be in- stalled in every seam and it is hoped that there will be that drive and initiative through the Coal Board to increase the numbers as far as possible, so that productivity can increase.
I was interested and pleased with the report of the Board's scientific control and research department. They are doing a good job and everyone will be glad if they can obviate those features in mining which have caused so much trouble, distress and suffering, by continuing to work in collaboration with the hospitals, universities and so forth.
One feature in the Report which can- not be buried by a flow of words is that whilst the Report showed that at the coal face we lost only something like 2,200 workers, there has been a considerable deterioration up to date. There is the consolation of knowing that during the period covered by this Report the fall was only to the extent of that figure. We must have regard to the fact, how- ever, that we are already on the slope, and that manpower is not being sufficiently maintained to meet the industry's requirements, in spite of the fact that the statement is made that the transfer and upgrading of men in the industry and the re-orientation of manpower has been such as to enable output to be maintained at the figure of the last 12 months.
The manpower position today is even worse, because at the beginning of this year there were 293,600 men at the coal face and at 1st July only 288,400. That is a loss of 5,200 men at the coal face compared with last year's figure, which in turn showed a loss on the corresponding figure for October, 1948. That is a serious position and something must be done about it, because this is a great industry. It is the foundation of the economic life of this land, and its future ought to have the interest and keen attention of everybody in this country, not only that of every Member of Parliament. Something must be done to meet this situation. I have on many occasions referred to my affinity to this industry, as a miner who spent 40 years in two pits, and who has at times in the past heard with regret the sneering of the other side about our efforts. I do not wish to introduce references to the bitterness and sourness that existed in the industry in bygone years; that does

no good to the industry or those engaged in it.
When I entered this House, it was; stated that I was the only Member on this side of the House who had a son in the pit. That was our feeling towards the industry in those days. Today wages are good and the men can keep their sons out of the pit, a different state of affairs altogether from that which existed in the old days, when we did not want them to go into the mines. In these circumstances something must be done to make this industry attractive. Our recovery and our future depends upon it and upon the men who enter it. It is not just a question of wages. Something more must be done, and the nation, not merely the Coal Board, must take responsibility for that.
I suggest to the Minister that he should ask the Board to be more careful in applying their concentration schemes and to be more considerate to the victims of redundancy, because we are getting many complaints from the various areas where that takes place. Above all—I do not intend to go into the details of these suggestions at this hour—we must press on with safety measures, aids to health, and last but not least, with a scheme which, no matter what it is called, will compensate for the shortened productive life of the miner, even if it means the giving of a differential pension to those engaged in this hazardous industry.

5.25 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: We have all listened with interest and appreciation to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Henry White). He has worked in the pits himself and really knows what he is talking about. I appreciate what he said about not referring too, much to the bitterness of the past, and I shall try in my speech to keep to the present. I wish to declare the floating interest which I always declare in matters to do with coal.
The Minister spoke of dissatisfaction in the country about the work of the Coal Board. His own action in spending 34 minutes out of the 35 minutes he spoke, in defending it, was to my mind the best. proof of the dissatisfaction there must be.
Qui s'excuse s'accuse.
"Who excuses himself is accusing himself also "I felt that throughout his


speech. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Manvers Company. I am sure he did not wish to be unfair, but he gave an example which suggested that the directors of Manvers in the past had never done anything in the matter to which he referred. I am quite certain that he did not mean that, but it is how it must have sounded to many people. Manvers were actually a very modern colliery. I believe that they had skip-winding there before anyone else had it. The N.C.B. spent money to develop Barnborough Pit in order to draw through it coal from another pit, Wath, which was never actually in the possession of Manvers. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to be unfair.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is exactly why I quoted that example—because it was the reorganisation of two pits together to give a better result than could be obtained from them separately.

Colonel Clarke: But inadvertently the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the former owners of Manvers had not done something which in fact they could not have done.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is the point I was trying to make, that they could not have done it.

Colonel Clarke: It is not only from people on this side of the House that criticism comes. The other day I was reading again a Fabian pamphlet by Mr. Cole in which he did not appear to be at all satisfied. These criticisms are coming from all sides.
I wish to turn to a more detailed examination of the Report, and to refer first to houses. They are referred to on page 172 of the Annual Report. I am rather distressed to see that the Report devotes only 14½ lines to colliery houses. It states that there are 141,000 colliery houses, and that
many of the houses are old and in poor condition.…
Many of us would have liked to have heard a little more about what is being done to try to improve those houses. I believe that an improvement of them could be a great step towards improving relations in the coalfields.
I next turn to a matter which is somewhat akin, namely, estates and farms.
Only a little over three-and-a-half lines are devoted to this subject. I understand that the Coal Board are the owners of more than 60,000 acres of land in this country. The only reference in the Report to this subject is that during the last year the net revenue increased by £23,000. I believe that there must have been a net profit of about 30s. per acre.
I should like to know what, if anything, was put back into the land? To take all that out of the land and put nothing back is not good landlordship, if I may coin a word. That leads one to the suspicion which many people have that much of this land is held only in order to prevent there being trouble from the farmers over matters of subsidence. I believe much of it is derelict and water-logged because it is not being farmed properly. I think it should be handed over to the Ministry of Agriculture who have facilities not available to the Coal Board.
An interesting business is being built up between the nationalised coal industry and the Forestry Commission. I have asked a number of Questions of the Ministry of Agriculture on the subject and I have had answers. The Coal Board, of course, are the great unquestionable. One cannot get any answers from them, and therefore I would take this chance of asking three questions on the matter of pit props. Are we still importing pit props or are home supplies sufficient? If we are importing them where are they coming from and how does the price compare with the price paid for home-grown pit props.
I should like to know the price as at the colliery siding. I hope no favour is being given to the Forestry Commission over private growers in the matter of pit props, because if it is it is very wrong. I would remind hon. Members that the whole future of British forestry depends very much on the production of pit props. Pit props take the thinnings and without taking thinnings we shall never have big timber.
A matter which is not referred to in the Report but which is really relevant to the whole future of the coal industry is the attitude of the National Coal Board towards the Schuman Plan. The steel masters have made their position clear, and I shall not refer to that because in doing so I should be out of order. But from the Coal Board we have heard nothing at all. If we asked them, I think


the sort of answer we should receive would be, "We are not prepared at present to say anything either for or against the Schuman Plan. Our overseas negotiating Committee is watching the matter carefully. We shall be prepared to consider the matter sympathetically when we know what it is all about." That of course is the answer of a Government Department, and it does not carry us very much further. But I think it only fair to this country in which one of the greatest industries is the production of coal that they should know more about the attitude of the National Coal Board to the Schuman Plan.
On page 9 of the report under the heading of "Planning for the Future" mention is made of the future demand for coal in the different markets at home and overseas. There are one or two things which occur to the outside observer who thinks about the future of coal exports because certain trends are definitely showing themselves. For instance, countries that were purely coal importing countries in the past, and hardly produced any coal at all, are now waking up and producing coal themselves. Spain is producing nearly double the amount that she produced before the war, 10 million tons. Turkey, never regarded as a coal producing country, is producing 4 million tons today as against 2½ million before the war; and France has also increased her production.
I wish to refer to the double-pricing system in which we sell coal abroad at £1 or more a ton more than in the home market. There has been a lot of criticism by a good many people who do not think we shall be able to maintain that system indefinitely. On 7th July I read in the "News Chronicle" the opinion of Mr. Homer on the subject. He said:
I do not believe it is going to be possible for the Board to get these additional prices for another year.
If we do not get these additional prices for another year it will be a very serious thing. Lord Hyndley is reported in the "Manchester Guardian" of 3rd July as having said that he estimated that the revenue of the Board would fall by £15 million per annum if the double-pricing system was abandoned. This would have turned last year's profit into a loss of about £5½ million, so that the double-pricing system is a matter of serious

moment to anybody who studies the financial position of the Coal Board.
I wonder whether the Minister has studied the report of his opposite number in France? The French Minister of Industry and Commerce, M. Louvel, in a recent Debate pointed out that in 1938 600,000 tons of fuel oil was consumed in France and now, in 1949, over 3 million tons was being consumed per annum. It was considered better from the point of view of the national economy to import calories in the form of oil than of coal. That is a serious thing for our exports.
The French Minister went on to say that the imports of coal in 1950 were to be limited to 9 million tons as against 17 million tons in 1949. I wish to be absolutely fair over this and there may be a little complication here about the coal from the Saar. I would not like to say whether the Saar coal was all included in the 1949 figure. Of the 9 million 6 million tons were to come from the Ruhr, and only 2 million from the United Kingdom, Belgium and Holland put together. In 1937, France imported 9 million tons of coal from Great Britain and that is down by a long way. The whole importations of coal in France before the war were about 28 million tons.
The Minister spoke of French production, but I do not know that there is anything very relevant about what he said except that he ended by saying that he did not think the French could maintain their output above their present target of 55 million tons over another year without a lower pit-head price. That is a factor which should be considered. I hope we may have the reaction of the Minister to this question of foreign expansion of coal supplies and if possible its relevance to the Schuman Plan.
The Report is a little on the defensive about this matter of dual prices. I felt they were rather like Warren Hastings when he was impeached for taking a million from India when he was Viceroy. His defence was that he was astounded at his own moderation. An hon. Member on the other side said the foreign buyers had not complained about dirty coal and it is true there was no specific complaint about dirty coal. The complaint is not that the coal delivered falls below the standard specification, but that the coal which is sent on the specification is far below the standard that it wanted.


For example, they may be told they cannot have less than 8 per cent. of ash; they get it and they do not like it. It is not that they are told 8 per cent. of ash and they get 10 per cent.
There is no doubt that the amount of coal for export is small. Actually, there has been a failure to meet contracts already made. I believe that today deliveries are from six to eight weeks behind schedule, and that Eire have been told that it is impossible to catch up on these contracts and they have been given a free hand to buy where they like. The position is very different from what it was when the Coal Industry Act was passed and importers were arraigned for shipping Polish coal to that country.
I expect that most people saw the comment in the City Notes in "The Times" this morning. I will read the last five lines, because they are interesting. They say:
British owners cannot help comparing the prolonged efforts, too often unsuccessful, which they have made to secure coal cargoes in this country with the ease with which it has been found possible to obtain cargoes from the Continent.
There is no doubt that there we are losing our position as exporters of coal. It is not only for export that coal is short. All this brings me back to the fact that coal is in short supply here too. We all know that another five million or six million tons could be taken by the domestic consumers if it was available. It is recognised that we are short by that amount. Last year the winter was exceptionally mild. If it had been a hard winter, like the one in 1947, we should have had just as great a disaster in the early months of this year as we had in 1947.
The stocks held by public utility companies are not too satisfactory, and, after all, they are the life-blood of our urban population. It is a fact that stocks should be increasing every year instead of decreasing, because consumption by the public utilities is increasing. In 1949 the electricity companies consumed about 30 million tons. If they consume, during the second half of this year, as much as they consumed in the first half, the figure for 1950 will be 32 million tons. Last year the gas companies consumed

25,300,000 tons. This year they are working at the rate of 26,500,000 tons. Consumption is steadily increasing.
At this time of the year, in 1949. stocks of gas coal amounted to 2,057,000 tons. whereas today they are 1,866,000 tons. Stocks held by the electricity companies in 1949 amounted to 3,629,000 tons, and today they are 3,381,000 tons. Consumption is increasing and stocks are decreasing. We are nearly half way through July, and a good deal of the stock is not there. On this subject of stocking the Minister was rather complacent when he said:
I have given instructions that, by the beginning of next winter, they"—
that is the stocks of the gas companies—
shall be built up to 5.3 weeks' consumption. I am confident that this should be enough."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1950; Vol. 477. c. 934.]
In the past I have had something to do with the shipping of coal to gas companies. For companies supplied with seaborne coal the custom before the war was to start the winter with stocks to cover a period of from 10 to 12 weeks.
Shipping coal by sea is a tricky business and there would be a big risk if stocks fell to two or three weeks' supply. In bad weather and fogs ships are unable to come up the Thames. Sometimes they are turned back by gales and they have to lie in Bridlington in the shelter of Flamborough Head perhaps for weeks. Once the deliveries get out of their steady order, a second trouble arises. When the ships arrive they all arrive together. The cargoes cannot be discharged at the same time, and some ships have to wait. Then they do not make the normal number of voyages. The result is that for some weeks after a bad fog or a storm the companies do not get the supplies which ought to be delivered. I have an idea that the figure given by the Minister referred more to those companies supplied by rail. I think the companies supplied by sea are being given a bigger stock, and it is right that that should be so. I should like to ask whether the Minister is satisfied that, through next winter, the necessary railway wagons will be available. Last season they were in short supply.
I was always told in the Army when I gave a lecture that one should end by trying to say something pleasant. I do not


think I have done that yet, so I will conclude by paying one compliment to the members of the National Coal Board and, even more, to members of trade unions and their leaders. Recently they have adopted a more realistic and—in the case of the trade union leaders—a more courageous approach to their problems. They have been repeating some of the home truths which we on this side have been saying for the last five years. I admit that, coming from hon. Gentlemen opposite, or from trade union leaders, those views appear to have had more effect. Until recently, when talking to miners, there has been too much of what the poet calls, "saying acceptable things." I cannot remember all the quotation, but it begins:
Truly ye are the people
Your throne is above the Kings.
When people talk to them, they have to say acceptable things. Today there is greater realism and more plain speaking. If that had been indulged in earlier, a great deal of time would have been saved and more coal would have been produced. I am glad to see the change that has taken place, and I am happy to have been able to end my criticism on what is perhaps a matter of a somewhat less controversial nature.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reply to some of the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), who discussed the important problem of mining and agricultural land, which has been debated many times in this House. I, as a Liberal in a minority of one in this Debate, wish to congratulate the Minister on his speech this afternoon. It was admirable and it also happened to be brief. He presented his Report in a model way and gave us a great deal of information. I thought that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) was in rollicking form. No one can accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being mealy-mouthed or a master of understatement. He enlivens our Debates. It is an edifying spectacle to see him talking to the miner Members on the opposite benches and taking up their practical interventions in the way that he does.
None of the parties in this House is in favour of the de-nationalisation of coal, as I understand the position after reading party pamphlets, and at most, or at best, some are in favour of decentralisation. Therefore I see no reason why we should debate this Annual Report as a consumers' council. Rather should we take every opportunity to be constructive, and out of the rut of party politics, in discussing an extraordinarily well-written report, which is a mine of information to the public.
The coal and steel industries of this country are the centre of our economic organised industry, and we must take this Annual Report and make our contributions to this Debate with that in mind, rather than make small points of criticism or complaint and turn the Debate into a sort of glorified complaints council. The coal and steel industries are the very centre of our national economic life, and that is no doubt one of the reasons why the Schuman Plan had to be looked at extremely carefully before the Government could join it.
The Report shows that production was up last year, and that output per man-shift was above that of 1938, but, as the Report shows, partly due to absenteeism, output per man-year, which is the bone of contention, was below that of 1938. Of course, the Minister of Fuel and Power had the advantage of giving us an interim report in his speech this afternoon, and he gave us figures for the first six months of this year. In this Report, we have only the figures to December, 1949, and, as a good company chairman would do, the right hon. Gentleman gave us more up-to-date figures for the last six months of working to show that the trend has been reversed, and I am sure the House was delighted to hear it.
I should like to refer to another point which was touched upon by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. H. White), who spoke earlier, and it is that we must be assured of still greater output, or we are going to be in difficulties, as far as consumption is concerned, on the home market in the coming winter. Without becoming controversial about what happened in the crisis of 1947, it is extremely important, with what may be ahead, that we should have an increased output in order to make more supplies available to the home market. I


should be very glad to receive an assurance from the Minister that any remaining restrictive practices on both sides are on the way out, because the Liberal Party has made a point of this question for a long time. The matter has also been raised in many debates in this House, and it was a reassuring sign when the Minister gave us that news today with regard to the use of machinery.
I should like also to congratulate the officers of the National Coal Board on the progress they made in 1949 with regard to the recruitment of personnel. It has been stated by a right hon. Gentleman opposite that the nationalisation of the mines was carried out in a hurry and that all kinds of temporary arrangements were made in the organisation of the industry. It will take time to put that right; it cannot be done quickly. I believe, however, that on the recruitment of personnel a great deal of valuable work has been done, not only by the National Coal Board but by the organisation in the different areas, and full credit should be given to them for it.
In regard to training, I think there has also been a great stride forward, but I would like to repeat the request which I made to the Lord President of the Council regarding the nationalised industries—that even greater measures will have to be taken in regard to education of personnel by the endowment of chairs at provincial universities for the study of the particular technique required in the management of nationalised industry. Nationalisation is here now, and nobody wants to de-nationalise this particular industry or unscramble this omelette, although many people want to see more decentralisation. That being the case, I think this matter should be taken out of party politics and that action should be taken so that we get the best education and training of the personnel recruited for this vital industry.

Mr. Bracken: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing a new job for the Minister of Town and Country Planning—because I would warmly welcome his suggestion?

Mr. Granville: I would hesitate to advocate any more appointments for any right hon. Gentleman, but it is important to remember that in the nationalised industries many of the people were hurriedly

placed in important jobs. The question has to be determined whether they are responsible to public opinion or are there merely to do an efficient job as technocrats. Are they responsible to the National Coal Board and to the House of Commons in a public sense? This is a new thing, and we have to create training facilities similar to the Henley School for entrants coming from school at an early stage in the development of the staffing of this industry, and eventually we should give provincial universities the opportunity to set up chairs for the study of the technique of management of nationalised industries.
It is fashionable, and perhaps quite right, to talk about decentralisation or devolution, and I agree with a great deal that was said by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch and other hon. Members by way of criticism that there was too much power at the centre. I think we have got to cut back as much as we can and by this means get closer contacts between management and men. I should like to pay a tribute to the people in the areas for the work they have done in this last year, particularly with the pit consultative committees. I do not think it is sufficiently well known that upon the areas themselves falls the responsibility for a great deal of the technical developments in the experimental work in regard to mechanisation and even research.
My information is that a good deal of that work has been done, not as the result of a directive from the Coal Board, but the other way about. I am told that these developments have been coming up from the areas all the time and that they are producing their own schemes for mechanisation and technical development. I also understand that they jealously guard this right and that, in fact, the Board have given this a good deal of encouragement. Nevertheless, there is still room for reducing responsibility at the centre, although I think we would make a mistake in debating this Annual Report if we forgot that the central function still exists, and if we placed too great an emphasis on decentralisation and forgot the vital part that is played by central control in the whole pattern.
I was brought up on the study of the Lloyd George Liberal Yellow Book "Coal and Power," which, with the


Samuel Report, made a considerable contribution in the planning of this great industry in the economic life of the country. When we are talking about decentralisation, let us not forget that what we want to see is this great industry, and indeed other vital ancillary industries, organised as part of a great economic service to industry and the people of this country. I have represented in this House for over 21 years a rural constituency, and one of the problems which the rural areas have been trying to solve is that of electrification, so as to carry light and power into the cottages and farms of the countryside. We shall only get the full development of electrification as part of a great economic programme plan. During the time I have been in this House, we have passed more permissive and enabling Bills than I can remember, and they have been throwing on local authorities responsibilities for expenditure which they could not afford.
I finish with the plea that while it may be important for us to devolve and decentralise, we should not forget that with our compact coalfields, what we should be aiming at is a bold utility scheme which will give eventually to all the areas of the country a great service of light and power, as well as water and transport. We shall only get that by coordination of provincial and national resources.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Grey: I am happy to give my support to this Report for two reasons. The first is that it proves we were right in 1946, and the second is because there is abundant evidence in it to prove that there is a new healthy life in the industry. Unlike the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) I have read and studied the Report. It was obvious from his speech that he had not read the Report. Having studied the Report, I have no hesitation in expressing my gratitude to the National Coal Board and to everyone concerned in the industry for the achievements of 1949.
I well recall one Tory Member in 1946 making a statement to the following effect. He said, "You want to nationalise the mines now, but the time is not far distant when you will want to sell them back to private enterprise. "I still think that the Tories are of the same mind.

Ever since those days, the Tory Party machine has used every trick to throw mud at the National Coal Board and to create disunity among the miners. The Opposition have consistently tried to prove how right they were and how wrong we were, but the Report gives definite proof of how right we were in the action we took in 1946.
Hon. Members opposite have always exploited the complaint about dirty coal. We had an example of that this afternoon. They never could make an allowance for anything. They ignored the fact, and still do, that increased mechanisation is bound to produce a lot of foreign matter in the coal, and that the only remedy is to increase the number of cleaning plants. If hon. Members opposite will read the Report, they will realise what is being done to establish more cleaning plants in order to deal with this problem. I hope that no hon. Member on this side will be asked by the Opposition why there are not more cleaning plants, because whoever is asked that question will have to make a very long speech about the neglect of the industry by private enterprise.
Another story invented by the Opposition is the one about "jobs for the boys." By spreading such a story, they tried to create disunity among the miners, and they thought it would enable them to win the last General Election. If they want to know how far they succeeded in that objective, I suggest that they look at the figures for that election and at the majorities of the miners' candidates. Indeed, one miners' candidate had the largest majority in the country. We regard the miners' vote as a vote of confidence in the N.C.B.
I have been in this House since 1945 —not a very long time, I agree—but I have yet to hear one speech from the party opposite that recognises the immensity of the problem. Of course, we have been treated, time after time to very silly diatribes by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch; he has amused us time and time again. But he says so much that means so little that one never knows when it is in order. I honestly believe that the Opposition still regard this question of nationalisation as a political issue. It is quite obvious from what has been said so far today that we are not really discussing the Report. The


whole speech of the right hon. Member was devoted to a new kind of plan that fitted into the ideas of private enterprise.

Mr. Watkinson: Mr. Watkinson (Working) rose—

Mr. Grey: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I never interfere with anybody, and I want to get on with my speech.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman ought to remember that when he challenges somebody, he ought to give way.

Mr. Grey: I could have challenged the right hon. Gentleman time and time again, but I did not. We are supposed to be discussing the Report today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] All right, I am coming to it. May I remind the right hon. Member that we have made a profit of £9,500,000?

Mr. Bracken: That is a good one.

Mr. Grey: Wait a moment. The reaction of the right hon. Gentleman to the first Report, which showed a loss of £23 million, was that he was not so much surprised at the loss as at the size of the loss. If he was then prepared to judge that Report on the loss made in that particular year, he must judge this Report on the profit which was made during 1949.
The Debate today is a rehash of the Debate which took place in January, 1946. If a vote is taken tonight—I do not know whether there will be one or not—it will be against the whole principle of nationalisation. It must be admitted by any fair-minded person that each of the three reports we have had so far has been progressively better than the one before. Indeed, the present Report gives us cause for the greatest degree of optimism, although I agree that manpower is a serious problem. However, it is a problem which has been somewhat offset by increased production at the coal face.
But we ought not to be satisfied with that; we must still regard the question of manpower as a very serious one for the industry, and we must find ways and means of solving the problem. There are two ways of solving it. First, there is the old Tory way of making sure that in certain areas there is no competition for manpower, thus forcing persons into the industry; and, secondly, there is the way

of making the pits more attractive. I am glad to say that the National Coal Board are adopting the second way.
I believe that among many people in this country, and especially among hon. Members opposite, there is a lamentable and unrealistic attempt to apply the test of production to the industry.

Mr. Bracken: That is wonderful.

Mr. Grey: Important as production is, in the economic sense, there are other phases of the industry which are of no mean importance. Because I think that, I will turn my attention to that part of the Report which deals with the health and safety of the miners. I believe that if we put the health of the miner right, production will follow. It is gratifying to read in the Report what has been done. We find that the accident rate for 1949 was less than for 1948, and half what it was before the war. This process must, of course, go on until the accident rate has been reduced to an absolute minimum.
Regarding medical and first-aid services, we see from the Report that there are 22 more medical centres, which brings the total number up to 33, with 79 state registered nurses—and this is a new kind of thing in industry these days. In the Northern Division there are 1,500 more certificated first-aid men, which shows how miners are prepared to look after their fellow men when they have suffered injury. There is also rehabilitation, welfare, pithead baths and the like. I could give a whole host of figures, but I would be boring the House, and I know that hon. Members can get them for themselves from the Report.
All these things ought to give us cause for great satisfaction. Their importance must not be minimised, because I believe that in the industry today there is a new realisation that, if we take care of the men first, the men will take care of the industry. Despite the fact that we have had great achievements in 1949, I should be a very foolish person if I said everything was perfect; but we can truthfully say that more has been done for the miners in the last three years than has been done for the whole of the industry in the last 50 years.

Mr. Osborne: Why then is recruiting falling off?

Mr. Grey: I shall give the same reply to the hon. Gentleman as I gave on another occasion, and that is that it is because there are not sufficient Tories going into it.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to inform the House what is happening in South-West Durham. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Murray), has tried to get Questions past the Table on this issue but has failed. There is much flooding in South-West Durham. Can we be informed whether pumping operations have started and, if they have started, how long it will be before these areas are clear?
Does the Parliamentary Secretary think the policy of closing down certain pits is a really good policy, in view of the fact that coal is a diminishing commodity in this country? Many of the pits are very old, and once we get out of them this coal will never be extracted. Close to my own village there is a colliery that is to be closed down this next week-end, namely Hetton Lyons colliery. That is a tragedy in village life; and it is rather a silly policy to close down pits when the country needs coal. I give my blessing to this Report. It is a report of progress, and it makes us all feel confident that the National Coal Board, and everyone concerned in the industry, are on the right way to produce all the coal needed in the country.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Nabarro: There were two points in the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), which I should like to follow. I entirely agree with him that the merits and demerits of the operation of the National Coal Board should not be adjudged only in the light of the profit it is earning, or in the light of the loss it has made in past years; but, as a matter of accounting fact, in the last full year before nationalisation of the industry, the total of all colliery profits in the United Kingdom was £16½ million. That compares not unfavourably with the result shown in this Report, which is a total profit of £9.5 million, to which must he added back the amount of Profits Tax allowed for in the accounts.

Mr. Murray: Can the hon. Member tell us what were the wages of men in the industry in 1938?

Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Member had been listening, he would have heard me say "the last full year before nationalisation. "I was referring to 1946 immediately before the Act nationalising the coal mines passed through this House.
The second point which the hon. Member for Durham was rather at pains to make was that hon. Members on this side of the House had not devoted their comments entirely to the Report which is before us today. I intend to devote the whole of my time to the contents of that Report because, as a very young Member of this House, I am not particularly interested in delving into the acrimonious relations which might have existed, from time to time, in the years between the wars, and the years before the First World War. I am much more concerned with the future of the industry, and that it should be capable of providing a sufficient total volume of coal to sustain the whole of our industrial economy and, at the same time. make steady progress towards what I regard as the optimum figure of coal exports, at the average pre-war rate of 50 million tons a year.
I should like to compliment the National Coal Board and the Minister of Fuel and Power upon the compilation and presentation of this Report, in respect of the chargeable accounting period ended 31st December, 1949. I have found it most interesting bedtime reading for the last 14 days, and I claim to be one of the Members of the House who has read the Report from beginning to end in order to ascertain certain essential features of our coal-mining industry which, I believe, have a marked, if not a vital, bearing on future operations.
Before I pass on to those features, I should like also to pay tribute to the chartered accountants who audited the accounts in this Report, the firm of Messrs. Thomson McLintock, on the way in which they have presented those accounts. I am not, by the way, a partner in that firm. I should like to express appreciation, also, of the allusion made on page 208 to 24 very gallant men in the coal mining industry who have upheld the highest traditions of rescue work in the industry, and who were responsible for limiting certain disasters that occurred in the year under review.
There are five particularly distressing features, all of a domestic character, in the Report. First, there is the total output per man year. Secondly, there is the effect of mechanisation, which has not yet attained the desirable outcomes that we all have at heart. Thirdly, there is the rate of absenteeism still persisting. Fourthly, there is the decline of manpower in the industry, and fifthly, there is the quality of the coal that is being made available to consumers in the United Kingdom, and notably to domestic consumers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) referred to the output per man year in 1940. The Minister of Fuel and Power referred to output per man year in 1938 and in 1949. I would prefer to put four annual output figures in their proper perspective, in order that every hon. Member may make a direct comparison. In 1938 the output was 290 tons per man year. In 1940 it was 302 tons, in 1945 it was 246 tons, and in 1949 it had risen to 282 tons per man year. Still, in 1949 the output rate is no less than 20 tons below the output rate in the year 1940
That must be compared directly with the progress made in mechanisation of the pits, not only during the period since nationalisation, but during the period of the whole of the last decade. Mention has been made of mechanical coal-cutting equipment such as the Mecco-Moore," the "Gloster-getter," the "Sampson stripper" and the "Coal plough" and other mechanical devices wholly or partly in use in our pits. But the vital statistics which should engage the attention of hon. Members—and they are simple facts—are that in 1938 only 56 per cent. of our coal was mechanically cut, whereas today 81 per cent. is mechanically cut. There has been an increase of 47 per cent. in the amount of coal mechanically cut, and yet the output rate per man year has declined.

Mr. Slater: Conditions have changed. When the hon. Member says that the amount of coal has decreased in spite of the introduction of mechanisation into the pits, he must take into consideration the height of the seams which are now being worked.

Mr. Nabarro: I grant that the hon. Member has some substance in that

argument, but I would remind him that mechanical devices which are introduced in our pits are not always of a single standard character. Mechanical devices introduced suit particular seams and particular working conditions. Of course, it is wholly wrong to compare mechanical cutting in the British coal mining industry with mechanical cutting in the American soft coal mining industry. They have seams as tall as this Chamber, and only certain mechanical devices are suited to them, in the same way as certain mechanical devices are suited to mining in this country.
In the matter of absenteeism, the Minister said that absenteeism had continued at a high rate. He mentioned that he felt it might have declined in the first six months of this year. I think all hon. Members, irrespective of their political party affiliations would do well mentally to grasp this thistle, this nettle of absenteeism, which is persisting at an inordinately high level, in the pits. None can deny that the figures revealed that for the year 1938 the rate of absenteeism was no more than 6.4 per cent as the total of voluntary and of involuntary absenteeism. In 1948 the total of voluntary and involuntary absenteeism had risen to 11.55 per cent. In 1949 it had risen to 12.34 per cent. In other words, the rate of absenteeism, in total, in 1949 was 0.79 of one per cent higher than the preceding year
Although the Minister has made a passing reference to a slight improvement in the first six months of this year, he has no advantage over other hon. Members in making that statement, for the Monthly Digest of Statistics clearly shows that the average total rate of voluntary and involuntary absenteeism, for the first six months of this year is 12.2 per cent. I am sure that we shall not split hairs about 0.1 per cent., one way or the other. The facts are perfectly clear. There is an inordinately high rate of absenteeism in the pits, and I make this point in no party spirit
I want to know from the Minister or from the Parliamentary Secretary when he winds up what views, what ambitions what plans the Minister and the National Coal Board have for the period of the immediate future as to how this high level of absenteeism may be abated. I


merely make this observation upon it. The coal miner's job is a dirty, dangerous and extremely unpleasant one, and is probably the worst of any industrial job in the country. But there are other industrial jobs of a heavy character which are nearly as bad.
I am going to make reference—I hope I shall not be deemed out of order for doing so—to another heavy industrial job, the drop hammer man's job in the forgings industry. It is significant that in a recent Anglo-American productivity report on that industry, the team of trade unionists, technicians, managers and executives who came back from America emphasised the point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the root cause of the much higher rate of American output of drop forgings, than of British drop forgings is the fact that we suffer a penal rate of direct and indirect taxation and a declining purchasing power in the pockets of the heavy industrial workers. We can never expect any abatement of that difficulty until the levels of taxation are reduced and purchasing power increased. My theories here are confirmed in practice in one heavy industry, but I believe that that is the root cause of the absenteeism in the coal mining industry, notably in so far as the workers at the coal face are concerned.
I would say a few words here about the manpower employed in the coal mining industry. The Minister said that manpower was continuously declining. In fact, that is so. In 1948 we had 727,000 men employed in the industry. In 1949 that had declined to 719,000 men, and today it is below 700,000. Although it has now declined to below 700,000 men in the industry, only 289,000 out of the 698,000 men in the industry are coal face workers. In 1948, when we had 727,000 men in the industry, 292,000 were coal face workers.
So that, although the total manpower in the industry, in the last two years has declined by 29,000—that is, from 727,000 to 698,000—yet the number of workers at the coal face has only declined by 3,000. That is an extremely interesting point. I do not view with great alarm at present this decline in manpower in the industry so long as we do not lose too many coal face workers. We are losing coal face workers at the

present time at a much lesser rate, compared with the total man surface workers in the industry.

Mr. Blyton: How does the hon. Member expect to get coal from the coal face worker if there are not enough men working on the roads to carry the coal out?

Mr. Nabarro: The number of surface workers engaged in the industry is, of course, closely related to the quality of the products from any particular pit, and while I do not deprecate the work that is done by a surface worker, let us face facts. The key, No. 1 man, is the coal face worker. The surface worker is a secondary worker.

Mr. Blyton: The hon. Member has missed my point. If the number of coal face workers is increased in a certain pit, we must still maintain on the roadways and at the junction points sufficient men to get the coal out.

Mr. Nabarro: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right, but he cannot deny that the total workers have declined by 29,000 over two years whereas coal face workers have only declined by 3,000. That is not, overall, a frightfully unsatisfactory position, because no hon. Member knows what will be the outcome of a vigorous policy of mechanisation during the next 10 years. We may well find by 1960 that we only require 350,000 men in the coal mining industry, because with the horsepower at their elbow and the greatly improved mechanical means of winning coal, O.M.Y. will double, or more, and it is possible that only one-half the present total number of workers will be needed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): What about some opencast mining?

Mr. Nabarro: I would add that at the present time there are grave difficulties arising in the matter of miners' wages. There are distant rumbles of disputes, strikes and of demands for further wage increases. I have no objection—and I am sure no thoughtful person who has been engaged in industry would have any objection—to coal mining wages rising much further, provided that the amount of the increase


in miners' wages goes on to the attendance bonus and on to the tonnage bonus, but not on the flat rate, in order that there shall be a much greater incentive provided for a big output at the coal face, and for a lessening rate of absenteeism.
The Parliamentary Secretary enjoined me to say something about opencast coal mining.

Mr. Robens: What I said was that there is a very high proportion of American output which is obtained from opencast methods.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sorry that I misunderstood him. In considering this Report, opencast mining must be in our thoughts, for in the year 1949 12.5 million tons were produced from opencast sites but this coal was marketed and sold by the National Coal Board. [Interruption.] Did I hear one hon. Member say "Good work"? I heartily agree. How difficult it was for the National Coal Board to sell that rubbish from opencast sites. Some of it may be good, but only a tiny percentage; the overwhelming bulk is rubbish.
The fifth point to which I wish to make reference, concerns the quality of coal which is available for the household consumer. The Minister of Fuel and Power said, no less than four months ago, that he was initiating urgent conversations with the National Coal Board to try to improve the quality and quantity of the household consumer's ration. I am delighted to see that he has now returned to his place, in time to hear my indictment of the negative results obtained. So far, there has been no result whatever.
I receive in my mail bag, as no doubt, do an overwhelming majority of hon. Members, as many complaints as ever about the quality of coal which is allocated to the household consumer. In fact, there are innumerable cases in Birmingham and Kidderminster—and I see no hon. Members from Birmingham in their places—of housewives who have to pay 8s. or 10s. or 15s. every fortnight to the dustmen to carry away the unburnable part of the ration which has been delivered. Under existing arrangements they have no redress, for the very good reason that the consumers' council is quite impotent. The household consumers are convinced—and

I personally am certainly convinced—that the miners take a great deal of blame for dirty coal and rotten material delivered to the consumer, which is not really their fault. The material concerned has been allocated to the household consumer from the output of the opencast sites. The Minister can check this fact—in the Midlands there are innumerable coal merchants and distributors who flatly refuse to take opencast coal, because it is so bad—and because their customers persistently, over the last few years, have been making an increasing fuss about it.
I do not believe that the Minister's conversations with the National Coal Board have had any tangible result at all. The household consumer is still the Cinderella of all the coal consumers in this country. The minimum that the family should be entitled to expect is three tons per annum. At the present time in the north of England they get 50 cwt. per annum and in the south 34 cwt., although why the differentiation between a house on the top of Dartmoor or Exmoor or Sedge-moor and the rural parts of Worcestershire and Warwickshire, I do not know. There is this unfortunate, arbitrary division, this line across the country which dooms those living on one side of it to only two-thirds of the tonnage of those living on the other side, irrespective of the climatic conditions or of peculiar or particular local circumstances. I ask the Minister tonight when he sums up kindly to dwell upon this problem of the domestic consumer, and to tell us bluntly whether he intends to do anything at all to help him, or whether he intends to leave him to "stew in his own rotten opencast juice" which he has had to put up with, in the last few years.

Mr. Daises: How much of the opencast coal does the hon. Member think goes to the domestic consumer? Would it surprise him to know it is only 5 per cent.?

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is misinformed. Last year the total output of opencast coal in this country was 12.5 million tons and I am reliably informed that 5.75 million tons of that went into domestic consumption. If the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power wishes to contradict me perhaps he will quote chapter and verse, and the statistical reference to support his statement.
When he replies tonight, will he deal with output, with absenteeism, with declining manpower in the pits, with the quality of the coal allocated to the household consumer, and with the opencast problems which affect him? Those are the cardinal points.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Albu: All of us on these benches were lost in admiration for the memory for figures which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) showed until he reached the latter part of his speech when it was obvious that his memory had led him severely astray. Nevertheless, it was an interesting and, I think, in many ways a constructive speech and certainly was a lesson for his right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) who generally opens or closes these Debates, and from whom we have come to expect a quite irresponsible speech, with the usual sort of jokes and so on and obviously not taking the subject at all seriously. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, accused my right hon. Friend of not treating this Debate as a non-partisan examination of the Coal Board's Annual Report. He then went on, of course, himself to make a completely partisan speech.
I think the attitude in which we should approach this Debate is that of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville), who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party. He said we should treat this Debate and these annual discussions as if we were a consumers' consultative council. There is a slight difficulty in that, as has been pointed out already. There is, in fact, a confict for Members of Parliament between their position representing consumers and their position as shareholders, shall I say, in the nationalised industries. I do not believe this conflict will last very long because I believe that one of the benefits of nationalisation is that we shall break down these barriers between producers and consumers which have bedevilled our industry for so long
It is in this manner that I wish to examine the Board's Report and to look at some of the aspects of general administration. Some of these matters on the administration of the nationalised industries were dealt with in a very comprehensive debate last week in another place.

Although I cannot refer to particular speeches, later in my remarks I shall refer to some of the matters dealt with.
First of all, I should like to add my congratulations to those of hon. Members who have already spoken to the Coal Board on the form of the presentation of its Report and the accounts. It is one of the benefits of nationalisation that we get these extremely full accounts which are published in every possible form so that it is possible to make a very clear examination of the efficiency of the management of the industry—a thing which, as far as I know, exists in no private industry whatsoever.
I do not want to dwell on the achievements of the Board, which were dealt with so well by my right hon. Friend. The recent level of output per man-year, if we do not lose any more manpower, will bring us to a production of 250 million tons a year in 1955. I can assure hon. Members that I have made the calculations. If output goes up further, as it seems to be doing this year, and if we do not lose any further manpower, then of course we shall reach that figure earlier. I think there are reasons for believing that the rather severe loss of manpower in the last few months may be due to some temporary causes. First of all, the abolition of the ring fence must have let a large number of people out suddenly. Secondly, there is the more selective recruitment of the Coal Board. As I think has been mentioned, there are, too, some signs again of increasing juvenile recruitment
Now I should like to turn for a moment to the question of prices. I believe that in the last 100 years the coal prices in relation to the prices of other basic raw materials have been continually rising, although, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, since the end of the war it has been going the other way. If we take the figure which my right hon. Friend gave of 247.9 as the coal price index and compare it with the price index of certain other things we find that, for instance, that of nonferrous metals is 254.1, that of wool 290.4 and of cotton 385.1, so it does not appear as if coal is really one of the worst features.
In regard to retail prices I think I am right in saying that they have not really risen more than the average cost of living has risen since 1938—and that in spite


of the fact that miners' earnings are now at the top of the earnings ladder, whereas before the war they were very nearly at the bottom and I think hon. Members will agree that, because of the danger and arduousness of their occupation, their earnings are now where they ought to be.
Hon. Members have referred to the dangers involved in the dual pricing in the export market. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, if we were to charge the prices which the market would bear the prices would be very much higher indeed, or if we were to do what "The Economist" advised us to do, which was to charge marginal costs, the price would be £3 or £4 a ton higher. We are doing none of these things, and I think the Coal Board have adopted a reasonable policy in these circumstances. Now they realise it cannot be continued, and in view of increasing international European cooperation, which has been supported in practice by us on this side of the House and by the Government. I think there is a case for gradually ending this differentiation, and it seems the way to do it is by increasing the differentiation in the prices for different qualities—and there are signs that the Board intend to do this.
Let me now turn for a moment to the general administration of the Board. I should like first of all to congratulate the Board and my right hon. Friend—or, at any rate, his predecessor—on the flexibility that they have shown since the Board was first set up, in the matter of administration. I think we must all agree that, in the first stage, when the Board were taking over an industry which has had such a history of difficult problems, it was essential to get the whole control in central hands to start with. That had to be done or nothing would have been done at all. Having done that, they have pursued a continuous policy of decentralisation.
I think it is right to say, as I think, the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) pointed out, in the main we have now very high quality staffs indeed, with great initiative and taking a great part of executive responsibility. That policy has been continuously pursued by the Board and is being pursued further. I think all of us accept that that is a good thing. The closer to the pit the management can be related the better. Of course, there are

great problems of planning in this industry, and great problems of changes that have to take place in respect to administration, capital equipment, human relations, and so on, which need a great deal of central control.
Another great improvement made by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, I think, was the alteration of the Board from being a functional Board to being a Board more for general policy making, having only one or two functional members left. Originally, it was a functional Board. [Interruption.] I think I am right. There are several part-time members now on the Board, and the Board has been increased in size, and I understand that only one or two functional members are left on the Board.

Mr. Robens: My hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Albu: I am perfectly certain I am. I think it was a mistake to have a functional Board in the first place, and I am very glad that the Minister has now made this change. I am glad also that they did not accept the recommendation which, I think, was made by the Burrows Committee, that they should have divisional or regional boards, because that would have led, I think, to regional conflicts, and to discussions of what should be the business of the general policy-making Board.
I have one suggestion which may be helpful, and that is that they should appoint one or two liaison directors whose business it would be to maintain contact with the divisions and areas throughout the country. These men could very well be men coming from the divisions or areas who were being trained for—shall I say? —the chairmanship or deputy chairmanship, or smaller executive posts on the Board. They would serve the purpose of ensuring that the views of the divisions and areas were heard on the Board, and they themselves would be particularly concerned with the partisan point of view in the hearing of differences of opinion.
There is one matter which, I think, concerns all of us who are concerned with the progress of the nationalised industries and with the development of their administration and their relations with this House. That is, the relation of the boards with the Ministers responsible for them. I myself believe that as we obtain a greater


degree of decentralisation, which, I believe will grow, as these boards come out of the arena of partisan discussion, and as they become settled in their methods, and so on, and as people become used to working with them, the Boards should themselves move closer to the Ministers, and that they should become more simply policy making bodies, with the various regional or divisional executives being responsible for carrying out the job. The boards should of course include a core of what I would call executive members.
In those circumstances, I believe, the boards should be more closely and officially responsible to Ministers. I believe there are certain difficulties at the present time about the relations between the Ministers and the boards when the boards have to consider the statutory obligations under which they work. I think we must envisage the boards becoming more closely responsible directly to the Ministers for general policy, and I myself believe the time may even come eventually for the Ministers to be the chairmen of the boards. Then it will be possible to question them on the policy of the boards, though not on the day to day administration and management of the industries, which would be carried out by more decentralised executive bodies.
If we have a look for a moment as shareholders at the overhead and administrative costs we really are astounded. How the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) could talk the drivel that he did about the loads of paper work and lots of unnecessary staff I do not know. It shows he has not read a single part of the Report or made any examination of the figures.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman has already been grossly inaccurate in telling us that there are only three functional members on the National Coal Board. If he would look at the Report in front of him he would see that, in point of fact, the administrative staff of the Coal Board is going up steadily.

Mr. Albu: It may be going up, but the costs are coming down. I did not mention any numbers of member—

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman said two or three.

Mr. Albu: I said the numbers of functional members have been reduced, and that there are few of them. Let us look at these administrative costs. The salaries and administrative expenses of the whole national office and of each divisional office amounts to £3,000,000 out of a total turnover of £478 million. Taking the salaries alone, they amounted to 21d. on the price of a ton. I ask hon. Members to compare that figure with the figure of 1,880 directors that there were in the industry in 1943. I am quite certain that vast numbers of those directors played no executive part in the industry whatsoever.
Taking the whole—and I am not a miner, and I am not speaking with any special technical knowledge of the mining industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am somewhat interested to find that hon. Members opposite are becoming syndicalists. Are those hon. Members who are shareholders able to carry out the processes that take place in the factories which they own as shareholders or directors? It is, of course, nonsense. I think we have a perfect right to look at the accounts of the Board from the ordinary commercial point of view and from the point of view of general administrative experience.

Mr. Watkinson: Would the hon. Member, when talking of administrative costs, be kind enough to refer to the administrative costs for 1947 and the administrative costs in 1949? He will find they are nearly double.

Mr. Albu: I would rather make my speech in my own way. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may think it funny, because he never makes a serious speech in this House. I have been in the House only 18 months, but I am really disgusted that the Opposition should allow the right hon. Gentleman to make the sort of speeches he makes on serious subjects in this House.
If I may go on, looking at the matter from the point of view of general administration, and looking at the total overheads of the industry—at the whole of the salaries and expenses; all the overhead expenses, including the areas salaries of clerks and everything else— they are £36¾ million, compared with the wages' bill of £284 million. From what I know of the industry and talking to


people in it, I always felt that it had far too little overheads, and far too little specialist assistance. As I understand it, colliery managers are very much overworked men; they have had very little specialist functional assistance in their job; they carry an enormous load of responsibility—and we should give them credit for what they are doing today—for human relations as well as, of course, for the technical job of mining.
It has been suggested, for instance, that colliery managers should have personnel managers. Well, I do not know whether that is the right thing for the industry, because I do not know enough about the industry. I am told that what would be a far better idea than having personnel managers—and we must face the fact that many of these colliery managers grew up in the days when they had to be the slave drivers of the old private owners; that is what they were, very largely, however technically efficient they may have been; they were not brought up in this new atmosphere, which is now apparently supported by hon. Members opposite, of joint consultation, good human relations, and so on—perhaps the right thing is not to have personnel managers but to train, as fast as we can, new fully technically qualified men, and give them to the old colliery managers as assistants for the time being. They would have been brought up in the new habits, and would take some of the load off the shoulders of existing colliery managers on the human relations side, and eventually become colliery managers themselves.
In that connection, I am rather sorry that there appears to be a reduction in expenditure on training. As far as I can find out the figures, there seems to have been a reduction from £274,000 to £35,000. Now I should have thought this was one of the fields in which expenditure should be raised, not lowered. Certainly the ladder plan is a good one, giving opportunity to everyone in the industry to get training according to their capacity, and to reach any position in the industry—a thing they never had before —but we must pay more attention to selection and training for the highest posts in the industry at area, divisional and national levels.
For this reason I was sorry to read in the Report of the closing of the training college at Nuneaton. The training college at Nuneaton was originally founded to train, I believe, training officers, but I should like to see it turned into a sort of administrative staff college. It might be associated with the general administrative staff college at Henley which is doing a very good job. I, personally, should like to see a general administrative staff college not only for nationalised industries, because we want to get that exchange of ideas, information and experience which is being built up at, for instance, Henley College. Nevertheless, I think it is a shame that Nuneaton College should have been closed down.
Turning to another aspect, I think we should spend more and not less money on research. I am fully aware that money may not be the only factor here. We have had Debates in this House on scientists, scientific training, scientific education, and so on. It may be that the men are not available; but here, after all, is one of the vital industries in our country, and I doubt whether the plan for 1950 to spend £300,000 is enough for research in these days. Even the figure last year for grants for research was slightly reduced. I am glad to see that the Board carried out some operational research in the industry, because once one associates technical and administrative research in a sort of team it becomes a valuable method.
Reference has been made to the problem of exports and the problems of competitive fuels. If we are to overcome these difficulties we must have research. not only in mining methods and by-products, but also in the use of coal itself as a solid fuel. We must not sit down under the competition of alternative fuels, but must have research into the development of new and cheaper methods of using the fuel we have, especially as that fuel must become lower in quality. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members laugh, because it is well known that coal becomes lower in quality the more it is mined. We may have to sell lower quality coal, but we ought to have research into methods to increase its uses.
On the profit and loss account, I do not quite understand—and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain, although I know it is done under other nationalisation Acts as well—why the Board should


have to redeem its capital in 50 years. Private industry does not do that. No doubt there is a good economic reason for it, but I have never been able to understand it. An instruction would seem to have been given to the Board by the Minister, and, as I say, it has been put into other nationalisation Acts as a statutory obligation, but I do not understand it, and do not see why it should be done.
Then, I cannot quite understand why the Board are in such a hurry to make a profit. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh because they do not really understand the whole process we are discussing. It may be that members of the Board have been so subjected to political attack that they felt it necessary to do so, but I do not believe that balancing one year with another means balancing two years with two years. The Board should realise that they have an enormous job of change on hand. I would not mind seeing them not making a profit, and perhaps making a small loss for the first 10 years, if by so doing they lay the foundation, which any ordinary business would do, for making profits later on.
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch talked about salvaging the industry. He knows perfectly well that the Board was created to salvage the industry. They should have treated it almost as a new concern. They had great physical changes and changes in human relations to make, and it would be a great shame if they found themselves without room to manœuvre, especially on the question of the wages structure of the industry, by feeling that they must make a profit during the next year.
There are many other matters concerned with administration, particularly on the subject of consumers' councils, that I should like to deal with but there is not time. My own view is that we do need consumers' councils, not necessarily decided on regional bases, but perhaps based on local authorities. They should be elected bodies, not appointed bodies, and they will play a very important part in the industry. One of the most important things in this of all industries is that we should break down the barriers that existed in the past between the miners who produced the coal and the ordinary people of the country who never saw how it was produced.

6.57 p.m.

Colonel Lancaster: I cannot attempt to follow the whole field over which the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) ranged, but in the course of my speech I will deal with one of the matters to which he referred. I should like, with others, to pay high tribute to what I think is an absolutely first-class Report by the National Coal Board, from both the statistical and accountancy aspect.
I, personally, do not think the Minister did the National Coal Board a very good service today by adopting an attitude of complacency, which is not revealed in this Report. I believe the National Coal Board have approached their problem in a very objective and sober frame of mind, and I do not believe this Report lends itself to either the optimistic, or indeed, the some what facile, approach of the right hon. Gentleman. It is very difficult for hon. Members, and particularly I expect for members of the public to wade through all this mass of statistics and to decide which are the salient matters that go to settle the success or otherwise of this industry. That is possibly the most difficult job we have to attempt.
I shall deal with just two aspects of the matter. They are the two which I feel are the most important. The first is the question of the level of prices. Now, we did not hear a great deal about that from the Minister; and, indeed, it is not very easy to decide whether the level of inland prices is a fair one or otherwise. We have heard in this Debate a good deal about whether or not it is desirable to balance the accounts of the National Coal Board; whether they have done well by making a profit of £9 million, or whether they did badly in past years by making a loss. More important than that, it seems to me, is whether or not the price being charged to the consumer is the right one. It is not easy to assess that, but I want to approach it from an angle to which, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman will give careful attention subsequently.
If we attempt to evaluate this by a yardstick, we must, I think, have regard to some past period and what is happening today. I am going to take a simple analogy. Before the war, the East Midlands was our most profitable producing


district, and made on an average in the two or three years immediately preceding the war a profit of 2s. a ton. That compared with a national figure of about 1 s. 4d. a ton. That same district today is making a profit of 8s. a ton. What has warranted the difference between the 2s. in the years immediately preceding the war and the 8s. today? Hon. Members, of course, recognise that profit is the difference between production costs and proceeds. Why has that 2s. been raised to 8s.?
Let us look at the comparative efficiency of the East Midland district. It is the most efficient division, by any comparable computation that we have, in the country. It has made a quite definite advance from pre-war days. There is a rise of 10 per cent. in its productivity capacity, but 10 per cent cannot warrant a fourfold increase in profits. It means that the consumer, whether household or industrial, is paying a higher price for his coal than is reasonable. If the yardstick of efficiency had been applied to that figure of proceeds under competitive conditions, we could not have seen a rise on that level.
The result has been that if we raise the standard in one part, we raise the standard throughout the whole industry. In fact, a number of divisions have made profits which might otherwise have made losses. When we come to look at the figure of £9½ million, it does not mean a great deal, unless we are satisfied that the level of proceeds is a sound one. I am by no means satisfied that it is.
It is important, apart from the fact that it affects every industrialist in this country, because we are at this moment on the edge of international discussions in regard to coal, the Schuman Plan and the like, which makes it vital that we should have regard to our costs not only in the export market but in comparison with the level obtaining on the Continent. The Minister recently gave figures which went to show that our costs and prices in this country compare favourably with those on the Continent. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman's figures went beyond the year 1948. I want to point out that I doubt if we are going to hold that advantage.
I say that for this reason: The average rise in production in this country in the

years before the war, from 1927 to 1939, was 11 per cent. Since the war, for the years 1946 to 1950, it has increased slightly to 12 per cent in a much shorter period and, of course in a sellers' market. During that comparable period, on the Continent, in the Ruhr, the Saar, Holland and Poland, not only had there been a greater rise during the years 1927 to 1939, but they have maintained the ratio of that rise during the last four years, and, indeed, two of these countries—Poland and the Saar—are producing more coal today than they were producing before the war. The rate of production in the long run is going to decide the level of costs and prices.
I am by no means certain that we can be in the least complacent about the level obtaining in this country at the moment. It may be argued by hon. Members that it is lower in relation to other commodities, but this is an indigenous product, and most of the commodities which the hon. Member for Edmonton mentioned, were imported in the first instance to this country and processed afterwards. This is an indigenous product, and we cannot approach it in the same way as we must inevitably approach the problem of import prices of raw materials.
The right hon. Gentleman has, in a sense, called this down upon his own head. In the first speech which he made as Minister of Fuel and Power in this House, he very unwisely, I think, drew a number of comparisons between this country and other countries in various aspects of coal mining. I do not think that was a very wise thing to do. I think that we are only justified in taking one figure as a comparison between this and other countries, and that is the figure of production. All the details of whether underground transport is carried out by one method or another are bound to be very wide of the mark.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I was only quoting the Reid Report in what I said. I admit that there is a great difference between different countries, but the Reid Committee thought it worth while to bring out the figures that I quoted, and I suggest that they illustrate our general situation.

Colonel Lancaster: I appreciate that. I do not, however, think that one ought


to be wholly led away by a purely technical report. We have at this moment a high level of costs in this country, and production on the Continent is going up at a ratio beyond ours. I think that these are two serious problems. What have we got to counter that with? I think that we have two invaluable assets. We have a very high level of technical ability and the quality of our colliers. I have probably seen more practical coal mining in the rest of the world than anyone in this House, and I say that the quality of our mine workers is unsurpassed, but I believe that no one would say that we are getting the best result from these men that we could expect. No one with the interest of this industry at heart would say so.
I say, with a considerable sense of responsibility, that a great many of our young technical men are getting very unsettled and frustrated. At one time, the average young technician was perfectly willing to continue in the industry, to go up by various stages, and to make it his life interest. At the present moment, a great many of these young technicians are looking abroad. It is not that they are badly paid; they are extremely well-paid and their conditions are good, but there is a definite feeling of frustration among them. Why?
I believe it all gets down to what I have said on previous occasions, that the structure of this industry is wrong. The hon. Member for Edmonton, at the beginning of his speech, mentioned something which he did not elaborate. He mentioned the interesting Debate that took place in another place about 10 days ago. That Debate was significant for this reason. On both sides of the House there was complete agreement that three things wanted doing. Firstly, that there needed to be de-centralisation; secondly, that executive power should be placed near production, and thirdly, that what needed doing needed doing now.
No one, I suggest, is going to imply that their own supporters in another place were embittered doctrinaires. They were nothing of the sort. I read the Debate carefully. They dealt with this whole problem most objectively. They were out to solve something which requires solving. I do not believe that the present structure is right. I am not going to weary the House with my views, because I

propounded them two years ago. They coincided at that time with those of Sir Charles Reid. They are in great measure what the signatories of the Reid Report themselves agreed to. It was an attempt on my part, as on the part of Sir Charles Reid, to give administrative effect to that technical report. I do not think anything has occurred since I wrote that which makes me feel that substantially it was not the right approach to the problem.
The tragedy is that it did not emanate from the other side. Had there been a Member opposite with experience of the higher ranks of administration in this industry I have little doubt that something not wholly dissimilar would have been produced and I have not the slightest doubt that it would have been taken up by the Government. It does not matter who produces these ideas. What does matter is that the House of Commons should solve this very real problem. If we do not do so, we are going to run into grave difficulties in the future. I believe that a good deal of the feeling against the Schuman proposal by Members opposite is due to the fact that deep down they think that if we go in for such proposals we shall find ourselves at a disadvantage, and if we are not very careful we shall find ourselves at an even greater disadvantage.
I believe that we shall eventually have to go into some arrangement of this sort. I hope that we shall go into any such arrangement with every advantage we can reasonably expect to have, and not with the National Coal Board as at present constituted. Members opposite may ask why I always drag up this aspect of the matter. I do so because I am perfectly certain that the present organisation is not getting the best results, either from the technicians or the colliers. I do not think there is the enthusiasm or the will to make the success there should be. There is only one way to do it, and that is to take the bold step of decentralisation, making the producing areas as autonomous as possible, so that the men have a feeling that it is their show and that their particular efforts are going to bring success or otherwise. Then, and then alone, shall we get the best results.

Mr. Harold Davies: We always listen with great interest to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member,


because we know of his vast experience in this industry. I have had the privilege of sitting this last day or so on selection committees to select young candidates from the industry in connection with the National Coal Board's scholarship system. The young men now in the industry, who are going into mining engineering or mechanical engineering, are showing great enthusiasm and great responsibility. These young boys who are now going to technical colleges or to the university—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not make a speech when he is interrupting. This is a speech.

Mr. Davies: May I make the point that this is something that is worth while which was never done under private enterprise?

Colonel Lancaster: The National Coal Board are capable of doing a lot of good things. I have never denied that. I am sure that their education, research and matters of that sort are being extremely effectively carried out. It would be silly to suggest otherwise. Those are the sort of functions that the National Coal Board can do better centrally than it is possible to do them at the periphery.
I am absolutely certain, however, that the production, which is the vital thing in this industry, must be controlled at the point of production. I do not believe that this system of centralised control is the right approach to the problem. I do not believe that many members of the National Coal Board itself still have the confidence they originally had in this system. I am aware of the fact that it is going to be a very big change, but if, for a moment, the House would forget that this is a party matter and approach the problem as a whole, then I believe we as the House of Commons can solve it, or get somewhere towards a solution. After all, in reviewing the problem of Korea the other day, we did so as a united House of Commons. The stakes in this industry are hardly less high. Surely we as a House of Commons can solve it as a united body, in a spirit of co-operation and divorced at this crucial moment from the taint of party politics.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Finch: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde, South (Colonel Lancaster) will excuse me if I do not follow his remarks concerning the Report of the National Coal Board. I join with other Members in congratulating the Minister on the able manner in which he surveyed the work during 1949 of the National Coal Board, and for the very detailed information which has been given concerning the working of the Board itself.
I want to confine myself to one aspect of the Report which has a bearing upon manpower. I would point out in the first place, that nationalisation has resulted, through the National Coal Board, in ever-widening measures of safety and health for those employed in the industry. More has been done in the past three years, by safety and precautionary measures, to save life and limb than was done before the National Coal Board came into existence. I draw attention to the tightening up of the roof control regulations, the many changes made in connection with haulage, improvements in lighting, improvements in the medical attendance at the pithead, and also to the tightening up of the shot-firing regulations.
All this has resulted in a lower death and serious accident rate in the industry. The cost of these improvements has brought very beneficial results. It has produced the lowest accident and death rate record in the industry. I think, therefore, that the National Coal Board can congratulate themselves on their achievements in this respect, and I hope that they will continue, without stint, to reduce the death and accident rates to the minimum.
I wish to dwell for a few moments on the problem of pneumoconiosis, which was referred to by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken). I draw his attention to the steps that have already been taken by the National Coal Board with a view to preventing the disease arising in the industry. A perusal of the Report will show that at least 70 miles of the face have been treated by a policy of wet cutting and water infusion, which is going a long way towards reducing the incidence of this disease. I realise that this has meant a considerable expenditure on the


part of the Board. If the South Wales coal owners, when the mines were under private enterprise, had taken the precautions the National Coal Board have taken, we should not at this moment have thousands of men suffering from pneumoconiosis.
When the Board took over the industry in South Wales, it was faced with the appalling position that between 1937 and 1947 over 15,000 men had been suspended from the industry owing to silicosis and pneumoconiosis. The figures may nit mean very much, but in terms of human suffering, periods of unemployment and poverty, the diseases mean a lot to the community in South Wales. Pneumoconiosis has been looked upon as one of the most serious social and industrial problems of South Wales. Therefore, it ill becomes the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch to criticise the Coal Board, which at least has followed a policy of water infusion and wet cutting to the extent of 70 miles of underground working in the collieries of South Wales.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I think my right hon. Friend was not so much criticising the National Coal Board as putting forward the suggestion that they should take advantage of further medical knowledge that has come to light. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that the method of suspending men from the industry was a method of palliating and preventing the disease from spreading. Hon. Members who were in the House before the war will know, as I did as a result of having to answer for it on behalf of the Home Office, that this was a very complex matter on which to get a proper diagnosis, and great progress has been made in recent years.

Mr. Finch: I agree with the last remark of the right hon. Gentleman, that a great deal of progress has been made in recent times.

Mr. Lloyd: Medical progress.

Mr. Finch: Progress by the policy adopted by the Coal Board itself in calling in the Medical Research Council, which has been operating for the last three or four years and has done so much excellent work inquiring into the incidence of pneumoconiosis.

Mr. Watkinson: I hope the hon. Gentleman will cover the point which was raised on the question of X-ray diagnosis being dealt with by the Coal Board. More might have been said in this Report on that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can deal with that.

Mr. Finch: That is being done now will deal with that problem.
Since the Industrial Injuries Act came into operation on 5th July, 1948, a policy has been adopted by which men certified to be suffering from pneumoconiosis are allowed to continue to work in the industry, providing, of course, that silicosis or pneumoconiosis is not accompanied by tuberculosis, with the result that last year in the mining industry in South Wales 3,800 men were certified to be suffering, but 2,300 continued at their employment in the industry. Most of them are back at the coal face continuing the work they previously did.
These men come up for periodical examination under an arrangement not with the Coal Board but with the Minister of National Insurance. Any criticism that might be made about the periodical examination or the methods of examination should be addressed to the Ministry of National Insurance, because the regulations are those for which the Ministry of National Insurance is responsible. In passing, as a result of the policy that has been adopted by the Coal Board in regard to water infusion and wet cutting, there is now a reduction, however slight, in the number of men suffering from pneumoconiosis. At the same time, I fully appreciate that much more can be done in order to prevent this disease.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that although there is taking place today so much water infusion and wet cutting at the coal face, nevertheless it is not done systematically. On many occasions it is done spasmodically. The equipment very often breaks down or is not sufficient, an-I sometimes there is not proper supervision, with the result that on many occasions in many shifts there is a considerable increase in dust concentration underground. Therefore, we feel—I am speaking to a large extent for the miners in the South Wales coal fields—that this Order, which came into operation in 1943 and which placed some obligation upon the mines inspectorate to


see that water infusion was carried out, should be more closely considered by the Minister. The Order says that:
Every person carrying on a coal mining undertaking in South Wales, shall, if so directed on behalf of the Minister by the Chief Inspector of Mines or by the Inspector of the Division in which the mine, or that part thereof, to which the direction applies is situated … insure that there is a policy of injection of water into the working face … etc.
That is not a compulsory Order, and I know of no instance where the mines inspectorate has in any way approached the management of any pit in South Wales with a view to seeing that water infusion is strictly applied. We know it is applied in quite a number of collieries, but it should be inspected by the Mines Inspectorate to see that it is not intermittent but is more rigidly carried out.
There is one other matter on manpower with which I should like to deal. I have drawn attention to the fact that thousands of men have left the mining industry owing to pneumoconiosis. When I refer to the figure of 15,000, I would remind hon. Members that that is equivalent to the manpower of three or four large-sized collieries in the South Wales coalfield, and would result in an output of thousands of tons per week today if those men were available. Some of them have gone out of the industry, but some would like to return if that were possible and there were some guarantee about their security in the event of their condition becoming worse.
That brings me to the question of the loss of manpower as compared with the recruitment in the industry. I do not take quite the optimistic view of some hon. Members, who have already spoken in this Debate. They feel that this question of manpower is one which can be solved in the near future by increased mechanisation. By that method they believe that we can overtake the loss which has taken place in manpower, but I would remind the House that we are losing men at the rate of 300 a week in the mining industry. The wastage is more than the recruitment, and if that position continues in the next 12 or 18 months we shall find the output of coal in this country going down by a considerable extent.

I want to remind hon. Members on this side of the House particularly that our policy of full employment is bound up with the mining industry. If output of coal declines, we may not be able to keep the power houses going, the electricity undertakings working and all those organisations which are so fundamental to our national economy. If that occurs, we shall find ourselves in serious difficulties in a few years' time. I take a rather grim view of the position unless we can attract young men to the industry.

Miss Jennie Lee: We have to keep the old ones, too.

Mr. Finch: Yes, I agree that we have so many old men in the industry, men of 70 years of age, and the young men are not going into the industry. We have got to find some means of attracting them, and that brings me to two points. First, I want to speak about the security of the men. In my constituency a young man came to me a few weeks ago. He was 32 years of age, and he had left the pits, taking a job as a roadman with the local authority. Before he was there a month, he had joined the pension scheme and had found security, so that when he came to the age of 60 or 65 he would have some guarantee for his old age by way of a pension.
The same applies to teachers, local government employees, civil servants, and policemen. Pension schemes have been brought into operation—and rightly so—for all these vocations. The teacher gets a pension because he or she is a teacher. The civil servant is paid a pension because he or she is a civil servant, and a similar rule applies to the local government employee. The pension goes with the occupation. I submit that the miner should get a pension because he is a miner. I know there are great difficulties in organising a pension scheme, but in this mining industry, where the men follow such an arduous occupation, where the risks are great and where production from the employment point of view decreases after 45 or 50 years of age, it is only right that they should be granted a pension when they attain 60 years of age.
The second point is that what is so unattractive to the young man is the low wage. Piece workers, who represent only


one-third of the manpower of the industry, are fairly reasonably paid, but the other two-thirds are men on the day wage. They earn from £5 to £5 15s. per week. If they lose a day, their wage falls to less than that. That is not very attractive to the young man who thinks of entering an industry where the accident rate has been so high. We must find some means of giving the young man a guarantee that he will have security and a pension, and to the lower-paid men an increase in wages.
I would say to my friends of the T.U.C. that the time has come for priorities in the question: "Which industry should come first?" What are the most urgent industries upon which our national economy depends? The productive industries. What is the most important production material that we have? Coal. The miners employed in the coal industry therefore have the right to say: "If this nation depends upon our work we are entitled to security and a pension."
It is the nation's responsibility to find men to go into the industry. It is not even the responsibility of the National Coal Board. We are faced with a continually declining output, and I would refer to that problem as an emergency issue, resulting from a gradual loss of manpower. The economic foundations of this country will crack unless we get more men into the industry. The only means of doing so is to give young entrants the security they so well deserve.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Redmayne: The speech which we have just heard reminds us that it will be wrong to consider that any of these structures in the coal industry—price structure, wage structure or cost structure—is yet in any way final. As a new Member of this honourable House I wonder for how many more years we shall go on claiming that more has been done in the last three, four or five years, as we go into the future, than was done in such and such a period in the past. At some future date we shall have to abandon that partisanship and I can only pray that it may be soon.
The last two hon. Members who spoke were obviously experts, but I am in no way an expert. I want to deal with the subject of the Report solely from the consumer's point of view, and largely in connection with price. It is known to

everyone that the Coal Board alone are empowered to fix the price of coal
at such prices as may seem to them best calculated to further the public interest.
Neither the Minister nor Parliament has power to affect that price. One understands that there was a gentleman's agreement that the home price should not be raised, but there was no gentleman's agreement that it should not be lowered.
From the tone of the report I am concerned whether the phrase "public interest" is not more related to proving the success of nationalisation as profit-maker than to the prime aim and object, the price paid by the consumer. In paragraph 7 price is referred to in this way:
There was no general increase in price, but the prices of the various types of coal were adjusted in May: the prices of the higher quality coals were increased and those of the lower quality coals reduced.
Then it says:
The net effect of the adjustments was a small increase in proceeds.
That small increase in proceeds was 9d. a ton. The Minister of Fuel and Power, with great and justified pride, has referred to 6d. per ton fall in costs, which he said made a difference of £5 million, but not much emphasis has been put upon the 9d. per ton increase in costs, which makes a difference the other way to the consumer to the extent of £7½ million, and in a year in which the Report says there has not been a general increase.
This "playing down" of prices—I think I am justified in so calling it—has been repeated in the Debate. It is being done outside also, I think as a matter of policy. In fact, the Coal Board's economic adviser made a very similar statement at the summer school. He is reported thus:
Since 1946 the price of coal had been falling in relation to the price of other materials.
That may be perfectly true, but it is only an economic turn of words. No economic turn of words can prove that the price of coal has fallen since 1946, except in relation to the prices of other materials. It is dangerous for such a statement to be accepted because in due course it will doubtless be misquoted. It tends to blunt the edge of the hard fact, as the economic adviser said at that time, "that coal prices can and must come down."
As I read the Report it seems that in the calculable future prices can and must go up. In paragraph 162 of the Report there is this statement, for a start:
Though it is broadly true that consumers are willing to pay more for one coal than another if its technical qualities are superior "—
and so on. I will not weary the House by quoting a long sentence. That is obviously and certainly true, if it is a little trite, but the lumps of stone and slate that decorate my office mantlepiece in Nottingham tend to show that there may have been wisdom in reducing the price of some of this inferior coal and that there may be greater wisdom if not a necessity in reducing it still further.
I do not doubt that when we get to a free market in coal, if we do so in measurable time, those bad qualities, if they cannot be cut out —I understand that it may be difficult to do so because of mechanical mining—will be unsaleable, or saleable only at a very low price. There will then be a tendency to recoup the loss by raising the prices of the better and more saleable grades. That is not forgotten in the Report in any way but it is not very strongly emphasised. Paragraph 167 says:
Further adjustments are needed and it will take time before the goal is reached and prices on the one hand cover or nearly cover production costs in the several coalfields and on the other fully reflect consumers' preferences for the various sorts and sizes of coal.
And paragraph 197 has what are to my mind the most significant two lines in the whole Report:
The next series of inland price adjustments (due in 1950) will probably diminish still further the margin between export prices and home prices of the good qualities.
What does the Minister anticipate that that will mean? I do not see that it means anything but a rise in the price of better qualities of coal for home consumption. It is well enough to say that coal prices can and must come down but I do not see from the Report that that is a likelihood in the near future because the price structure, the wages structure and the production costs of the industry are not finalised. In the abridged Report, the "Coal" industry is referred to as a promising three-year-old. I would remind the House that a three-year-old has all its troubles before it with the possible exception of teething troubles.
In connection with the wage structure and production, the House will have noted that the leader of the Nottinghamshire delegation to the conference of the N.U.M. made some statements which have attracted considerable attention. He drew attention, rightly, to the fact that the output per man-shift in Nottinghamshire was as high as 35 cwt. and said that the Coal Board were now taking a profit of 15s. a shift from each man. That is approximately true. He went on to say:
Before nationalisation, if the miners had known that their leaders were allowing the old owners to have 15s. a shift profit they would have hanged every leader there was.
That was in the pleasant give and take of a conference and was said in lighter mood. He did not say what they would have done to the owners. The important thing which was said was:
The Nottinghamshire miners have earned this money and they want some of it.
That needs very careful thought now and in the near and distant future. It is only right that I should comment on this because I come from that part of the world. It is fair comment, and it is particularly fair comment to the man who made those remarks, that the offsetting of profits of one division by losses in another, is the fruit and essence of nationalisation, and it stands to reason that it is sweeter fruit and less sweet fruit for divisions according to whether they are running at a profit or at a loss.
I have great sympathy with the idea of a greater reward for greater effort. I know one hon. Member who, if he were here, would ask, "Do you, then, believe in district wage fixing and district competition, and so on?" I would not propose to give an answer, but I will say that whatever I or anybody else may believe about the reward for effort, it is obviously not the time to make claims of that sort until all the varying grades of coal which are now being produced have found their proper place and level in the national price structure. We should not lose sight of the fact that the first object of nationalised industry, given fair wages and conditions—let us agree that—must be to provide value to the consumer throughout the range of its product or service, and however much we may argue in partisan spirit about this or that area, this or that class or this or that type of industry, sooner or later we have to come back to that basic principle.
One has misgivings about the continuation of the present export price and the adverse effect of the necessity to continue to change the range of home prices, but none the less there are in the Report many good features and not the least of these is that four of the regions, without cutting costs in any way—one hopes that they will be able to cut costs—could, if they were not saddled with the necessity of making a profit for the benefit of nonprofit making regions, reduce the prices of coal in their areas allowing for no profit, by 8s. in Nottingham, 5s., 4s. and 2s.
There is one thing that worries me about this. Some of my hon. Friends will probably not agree with me. There is a reference in the Report to Profits Tax and a somewhat optimistic reference to Income Tax. I pray that it will be the policy in this country in due course that once the deficits on this and other nationalised industries have been made up and if there is ever any taxable profit, it should go into the pocket of the consumer and not into the Chancellor's pocket. I know that there are counter arguments about the need for reserves and so on, but, given fair employment, the one aim and object should be to give value to the consumer of the service.
I want to ask the Government two questions. One concerns marketing at home. The Report says:
Had there been a spell of cold weather later in the year, householders might have had to go short.
That statement might well have been corrected in the proof because all hon. Members know that householders did go short. Even if they did not go short the balance of their allocation was very often what is called "cushion coal," stuff which, quite honestly, is not worth the money which has to be paid for it.
In that small respect I consider that the Report paints a false picture. It says:
Many householders preferred not to stock up in the summer months.
Many householders cannot do so because they have neither the space nor the money. My opinion, and I stick to this, is that if some were allowed to take a full year's allocation in summer distribution to others in the winter months would be easier. The Report says that some people did not take their allocation and that the
coal saved was readily marketed to other consumers at home and abroad.

That meant that a good many people got stuck in the winter.
Is the Minister satisfied that by adhering too closely to what in answer to a Question three or four months ago he called: "The principle of fair shares" —one knows that he meant it with every good intention—he is not causing greater hardship to the people with small coal stores and smaller pockets who have to rely solely on the success of winter distribution? We know that winter distribution in the last two mild winters has been comparatively easy, but we shall not have mild winters for ever.
My second question is whether the Board really has a clear conscience about housing. In both the 1948 and the 1949 Reports housing is referred to as an aid to economic production. I believe that it has a considerable effect on absenteeism. Are the Board in their proper function as a non-political body satisfied with the national housing policy? In the Report a member of the Board is quoted as referring to a number of houses provided by local authorities "and others." Do the Board consider that the "others" are providing enough houses to help them out. Presumably that question will have to be rhetorical; I do not see how the Minister can answer it because he is not a non-political body.
The Report also refers to an inherited liability of £500,000 for subsidised transport and goes on to say that presumably:
When passenger transport by road has been re-organised by the British Transport Commission, it will be their responsibility.
I would make this point, that it is still a loss to the nation and that it is no solution in talking of nationalisation to shuffle off one charge from one body on to another and think that is to the advantage of coal or transport or anything else. Houses are the answer to that cost of transport, and I repeat my question as to whether the Board are satisfied about housing.
In the 1948 Report were these words:
High costs of coal production contain a double threat to the standard of living of all the people and to the security of employment and earnings of the industry itself.
Something of that sort has been suggested tonight as being the words of Lord Hyndley in April, but it is noticeable that


words as strong as those do not appear in the 1949 Report and, in my opinion, they should so appear.
We have said that we believe that actions are required in regard to the Coal Board, inquiries as to how it is run, possibly decentralisation. Many hon. Members have far better ideas about the organisation of the production of coal than I have. I simply ask all those in the House, all the people in the industry and all those outside to be sure that our object is not simply the success of nationalisation as a child of Socialism but as a means of helping the industry in this country by providing a basic need at a basic cost.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Timmons: When the Debate started this evening, I was glad to notice that the general trend of the speeches from the other side of the House did not follow that of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), because the impression he left with me was that had the Coal Board made losses of £9½ million he would have been quite delighted. I want to add my tribute to the Coal Board for the work they have done in a period of three years. They took over this industry when it was in a state of collapse and, steadily and gradually, in spite of the difficulties, have brought it to a position where it looks quite healthy.
Many hon. Members on this side of the House who knew the state of the industry for many years before 1946 will appreciate the work that has been done, and the extent to which output has been stepped up, both in the aggregate and per man-shift, is something of which the nation has reason to be proud. All the success that has taken place during these last three years is to the credit of the management and men in the industry because of their spirit of co-operation during its most difficult time. On the question of recruitment, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) I am not optimistic that we shall get the manpower required to give the necessary output. However, I shall deal with that later.
What would have been the position if the industry had not been nationalised?

Would this country have made the great economic recovery it has done in the past four or five years? I say advisedly that it never would have done so. We could never have got the confidence and willingness of the men in the mining industry to work as they have done during the past five years.
Having said that, I want to turn to the position of the mining industry in Scotland. I know the developments that have taken place in Scotland, the transfers of population from Lanarkshire to the Lothians, to Fife and to Ayrshire. I want my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to pay particular heed to what I am about to say. I know Lanarkshire. They have just about all the families they can get in the new coal areas. There has been a substantial loss of manpower as a result of the policy pursued by the Divisional Coal Board which has been the policy of Sir Charles Reid.
Those developments took place in the Fife coalfield long before the industry was nationalised, when Sir Charles Reid held an all-powerful job at the Ministry of Fuel and Power during the war period. The intention was to uproot people from Lanarkshire and transfer them to Fife to meet the needs of the Fife Coal Company, of which he held that company's complex. It has created social problems in Lanarkshire which will not be overcome for many years.
I am talking now of the displaced persons in Lanarkshire, of men who are immobile and who cannot be transferred, and of the treatment meted out to them. Does the Minister think that either he or the Coal Board have any moral responsibility for these men? Our younger people went quite voluntarily to these new areas, but the man between 40 and 50, who has been the backbone of the industry, has family ties and interests in Lanarkshire so that he cannot uproot himself unless he uproots his family, many members of which are in trades or professions or other industries.
Does my hon. Friend believe that he has no moral obligation or responsibility for the wellbeing of these people who have spent the best years of their lives in the mining industry or are they to be cast aside on the scrapheap, to remain there until they attain 65 years of age? I am disturbed and upset about this. That is


the apprehension which is in the minds of all these miners who are redundant and who are today running the streets of Lanarkshire. I want the Minister to pay particular attention to this question.
It is said that Lanarkshire is a dying coal field, but there are still 700 million tons of the finest coal in the British coal fields. The state of Lanarkshire today is due to the maladministration of private enterprise over many years. I know the policy that has been pursued by the Divisional Coal Board. They have been concentrating on getting immediate production. Can my hon. Friend give us any indication of the policy of the Coal Board in regard to new workings? Do not let us forget that Lanarkshire trained more men in the mining industry than any area throughout Scotland, and that some of the best miners in Great Britain came from that area. Not only are we losing the men from production but we are losing potential miners who might have had the opportunity of training inside Lanarkshire. I should like my hon. Friend to say when it is intended to carry out a scheme of new workings in Lanarkshire.
Another aspect to which I want to refer is the question of providing a coal distillation plant. I remember in 1946 being one of the Lanarkshire M.P.s who came to discuss this matter with the then Minister. My right hon. Friend was quite sympathetic to the whole question, as were his officials, but his main pre-occupation was the raising of production. With a coal distillation plant, Lanarkshire would not only be able to build up many other industries from by-products but could also absorb many of the miners who are now becoming redundant.
The redundant miners of Lanarkshire feel that they are more or less outcasts, that they have given the best years of their lives to the industry and in assisting to build up the economic life of the nation, but that now that they have attained the age of 45 or 50 and their pits are closing, they are thrown on to the scrap heap and nobody cares about them. Once more I ask the Minister: does he not consider that his Department, representing the nation, and the Coal Board have any moral obligation towards these men?
I come now to the possibility of new developments. I could pinpoint a number

of areas which are suitable for this purpose. In 1939 the Chairman of the United Coal Company told me that his company's main hope for the future lay in the Newhous area, where it was their intention to sink pits and to build houses for their officials in order to proceed with the development of the area. But the war intervened, and by 1945 no development had taken place. There seems to be no indication of any real progress within that area unless something is done to force its development.
There are proposals also for further closures in the Clyde Valley area, where pits are closing so rapidly that there is no preparation for the further development which would help to absorb the redundant workers of Lanarkshire. A great deal has been said about planning, but there has been a total lack of planning by the Divisional Board in Scotland as far as Lanarkshire is concerned. People are being taken to the new coal areas which do not possess social amenities of any kind whatever.
It would have been as well had the Minister been present at the miners' conference which I attended this year at North Berwick, so that he could have listened to the complaints and resolutions which were put forward on this question of the deficiency of amenities in the new areas to which the workers were being transferred. Many of the womenfolk find it impossible to remain there, and drift back again to Lanarkshire. It is the duty not only of the Coal Board, but of the Government and of my right hon. Friend, to see that something is done to provide proper and adequate amenities in these areas.
I should like to say a few words about the strike in Scotland. I prophesied six months ago that this kind of situation was likely to develop—I knew that it was bound to do so. Anyone who has frequent contact with the miners, as I have, will be aware of their temper and tone. The younger, lower paid workers, who earn £5 15s. a week may have to pay as much as 10s. a week on travelling, with the result that after other deductions have been made they take home less than £5 on which to support a wife and, perhaps, a couple of children. Only last weekend I was discussing the strike with some of the younger men, two of whom had walked out and had begun tramping in


search of work elsewhere. They had no intention of continuing to work in the mines when they saw their young sisters bringing in more money from their jobs in a factory. That state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.
The feeling on these matters is spreading throughout Lanarkshire, and only last weekend in my constituency there was talk of a procession by means of buses to the divisional offices of the Board in Edinburgh as a demonstration against the problems which have been created in Lanarkshire by the complete lack of consideration for those employed in the industry. The Board, apparently, go ahead with the closing of pits, and the consequent uprooting of families, just as they please. I am not one to ask for the continuance of hopelessly uneconomic pits in areas where workable resources are exhausted, but I think that progress could be made on schemes of reorganisation with many of the pits in the areas where vast resources still exist. By this means, the men now becoming redundant from the pits which closed could be absorbed elsewhere.
The only thing with which the Board seem to be concerned is the making of profits, and without any thought or consideration for the problems and difficulties which such a policy creates for the human element of the industry. I appeal to my hon. Friend to give particular attention to the problem of the miners in Lanarkshire, who are at present without any hope of becoming absorbed in industry. These men, some of the best coal face workers we have known, could still do a great job of work, and I ask my hon. Friend to give serious thought and consideration on their behalf.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Shepherd: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons) because he has "high-lighted" a subject about which I wanted to talk: that is, that the Coal Board, like almost every other nationalised concern, is not giving satisfaction to the workers within the industry. What must strike hon. Members opposite as being most remarkable is that improvement in material conditions and monetary wages has not been followed by a corresponding satisfaction with the job. That must concern everybody who has

some regard for the concept of nationalisation, and I want to talk a little about this in the very short time which is at my disposal.
One could not expect Socialism to look quite as bright and shiny when it was brought down to earth as when it was snatched from the sky. Certainly it has been a great disappointment to a lot of people, including the miners. The first essential disappointment about nationalisation is that it is socially unsatisfying to those who work under it. That is one of the most significant things about it. I know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are all preparing excuses for its shortcomings. The right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Defence, told us a couple of years ago that the real reason was that the party opposite had not taken sufficient care in laying the administrative basis.
All I can say is that if anyone accepts that excuse, he will accept anything, because I believe that there are such fundamental defects in the method of conducting business represented by nationalised boards, as to make it incapable of any redemption by the most ingenious of administrative advisers. I do not think that it can possibly yield any administrative solution to the problem. I have said how remarkable it is that nationalised industries do not give satisfaction to their workers, and that despite improved material conditions most of those engaged in those industries find the work unsatisfying. Why is that so? The answer is inescapable. It is simply that this method of running an industry intensifies the defect of the 20th century industrial system. It makes the organisations bigger and bigger, it makes the control more and more remote and makes the ordinary individual working in a humble capacity, feel more and more like a minute cog in a mammoth machine.
That is why it is socially unsatisfying and I cannot see that any administrative devices are likely to cure that fundamental difficulty. Indeed, its shortcomings are intensified under a system of full employment. Nothing is worse in the conduct of industry under full employment than a nationalised board. In industry under full employment, above all we need leadership, and if we are not to have men sacked for not doing what we want them to do, we must have better


leadership. But nationalised corporations take away all real chance of leadership from where it is wanted.
The mine manager is no longer the leader he was. [An HON. MEMBER: "Thank goodness."] An hon. Member said, "Thank goodness," but many miners whom I know pay great tribute to the sterling qualities of the mine managers of the past. If we take away the power of leadership from individuals on the job, we do immense damage to the structure of the industry, as I am sure we are doing in many nationalised industries today. Many hon. Members opposite believe that the way to get out of this problem is to get hold of brilliant people from outside and put them into jobs. They say that, after all, if they run privately-owned organisations successfully and make a profit why not—as the Lord President said in a Debate on the coal industry—buy the brains and bring them in to run the industry?
This really shows an abysmal ignorance of what is needed, because it is no good buying the brains at high prices to the public and then putting the men into a strait jacket and taking them into an atmosphere which stifles and stultifies all the qualities for which one bought them. That is precisely what is done when an expensive man from outside is bought and put inside a nationalised board. He cannot exist in the atmosphere of the industry. His whole personality is confined and restricted and he cannot do the job he did for an outside concern. That is the difficulty and the fundamental defect of this type of organisation, and I cannot conceive any organisation, however clever, getting over it.
I feel that this system of setting up these huge boards creates a machine which cannot be controlled. I admit the strong and good social purpose behind the intentions of hon. Members opposite when they nationalised the coal industry. I do not for a moment decry the social purpose they had in mind, but are they sure—is any hon. Member opposite sure today—that they can control and direct this industry by the machinery they now have along the lines and with the social intent they had in mind originally? I do not think there is one of them who really believes they can do that. Indeed, these national boards are Frankenstein monsters which they have created but cannot control.

We must not run away with the idea that this position is going to get better as time goes on. Some hon. Member said that when it settles down, things will be very much different. I will tell him how different they will be. They will be more rigid and inflexible than they are today. An empire is gradually being built up and the man at the top says, "I must know what is going wrong." As soon as anything goes wrong, he wants a regulation to see that it does not happen again. There will be no tendency to be more easy and flexible, but there will be a tendency to be more rigid, constantly to tighten up and eventually to eliminate the initiative which private enterprise had left.
There is one sin in this form of organisation which I consider to be the most deadly of all, and which I cannot see any method of overcoming. It is that under this form of organisation we can only have the impulse at the centre. However dynamic that impulse is at the centre, at the perimeter it is so weak as to have no effect at all. Contrast that state of affairs with the state of affairs under private enterprise. Under private enterprise there are myriad impulses at all levels, in all parts of the country, radiating to a relatively small circle, but under this control there is no possibility of getting that because the direction is central and some personality has to try to get the impetus over the whole country. Obviously it breaks down; it is not working and cannot work, even if we had a superman—and the supply of supermen is rather limited.
I ask hon. Members opposite, who have been pursuing this mistaken line of thought for 40 years and more, do they not realise they are doing the wrong thing? Even if one admits, as I do, that there are anti-social features in private enterprise, it is much easier to control the anti-social tendencies of private enterprise than to try to inject into a State organisation the spirit of service and progress. I believe that is the fundamental issue on which we should judge this question. I am quite convinced we cannot inject into these organisations the spirit of progress, service and efficiency as easily as we can control the anti-social tendencies of private organisations.
Everybody must suffer under this system, but most of all the consumer


must suffer. He has no say in it at all. I know that there is a little talk now and again about consumers' councils, but that is really a pathetic thing to talk about. We can never blast the massive tranquillity of a State monopoly with the damp squib of a consumers' council, and hon. Members opposite who are honest will realise that that is true. There is no way that I know, or, I think, that anyone else who studies the problem knows, of ensuring efficiency and the right goods at the right price, other than by competition. If hon. Members opposite can devise a method by which they can substitute something more stimulating than competition as a means of getting efficincy, they have solved their problem, but I am convinced that nothing exists equal to the stimulus of competition as a means of getting efficiency.
I urge all hon. Members opposite to try to reconsider their attitude towards this problem, because, after all, the future of this country industrially is important to us all. If we take the wrong step and if we continue to socialise industries, as we have socialised the coal industry, and it has a bad effect on their efficiency and capacity to compete in the world, everybody in this country will be in a very bad way. I should say that 50 or 100 years ago the solution put forward by hon. Members opposite today was one which might have been followed. I think they are really the Rip van Winkles of politics and they have been asleep a very long time indeed. They have not realised that we can control industry without necessarily owning it and that the more we divorce the function of industry from the function of government, the better will government perform its function. A Government or State board does not run an industry very well. Private industry and employers do not see the whole picture. There is obviously a need to marry the two to get the best results.

Mr. Daines: Is that the reason why so many of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have been screaming for a national marketing board for the fishing industry as soon as they felt the blast of private enterprise?

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is taking a rather narrow view. I have never said that it was proper that

the full blast of competition should not in some way be blunted, in order to secure some form of stability. The problem of the 20th century is how far we can go in marrying stability with progress, how far we can secure progressive industrial efficiency married with stability for the industry, and security of livelihood for the worker. It is often the case, and it should be so, that we limit the sharper edges of competition to attain the end of stability. In that matter considerable judgment must be displayed. It is a more delicate problem than that can be dealt with by the blunderbuss of nationalisation. I appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to think again about this problem. It will not do this country any good if they continue to advocate a 19th century remedy for a 20th century problem.

8.22 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: The shortness of the time at my disposal precludes me from following the observations of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). I wish to speak on the one aspect of the Report about which I know something. That is the liability accepted by the Coal Board for men who had been injured or were suffering from industrial disease at the time the Coal Board took over the industry. Of these men one particular group is being very unfairly treated. I have to accuse the Coal Board of taking advantage of any possible legal loophole in cases in which men last worked in the mines prior to the vesting date, whereas in the case of men who have actually worked for the Coal Board they are not taking this type of advantage.
The men on whose behalf I am speaking are mostly old men who have spent their lifetime in the industry below ground. Nearly all of them are cases of pneumoconiosis who have been certified recently and who fall into two groups. The first group consists of cases in which, owing to the fact that pneumoconiosis was not included in the amending schemes of 1946, which had reference to the pneumoconiosis scheme of 1943, but in which the former silicosis and sandstone and metal grinding schemes only were referred to, the men cannot take into account the fact that they did war work, in relation to the statutory five years' interval which is allowed. That is a very serious matter


indeed because we in this House have some responsibility. We passed these schemes in 1946 and none of us had in mind the possibility that what we did would be unfair to the very men for whose benefit the schemes were being made.
The whole matter is complicated by the fact that since 1943, the silicosis boards have no longer used the word "silicosis when certifying a case but have used the umbrella word "pneumoconiosis." By this they mean a particular fibrosis due to coal dust inhalation or inhalation of siliceous material. Pneumoconiosis includes therefore silicosis or reticular fibrosis, and it is most unfortunate that by some lapse, the word "pneumoconiosis" is the one word not mentioned in the 1946 amending schemes. As a result some men who are certified to be suffering from pneumoconiosis are denied compensation. Men do not carry inside their anatomy an X-ray apparatus which tells them "You have silicosis" or "You have silicosis and tuberculosis."
The second group of cases are those in which the Coal Board are seeking to show that the silicosis boards of this country have now no right to issue a certificate after 5th July, 1948, or that if they do give a certificate of incapacity, it is of no value and does not bind the Coal Board in any way.

Mr. Ronald Williams: I hesitate to intervene, but my hon. Friend might very well mislead the House upon this point. The situation to which he has referred has arisen as a consequence of a decision in the Court of Appeal. In point of fact cases which are being dealt with by insurance companies have had their payments suspended, whereas those which are being paid by the National Coal Board have not had their payments suspended, and the Coal Board has recently agreed to pay on an ex gratia basis, in those cases until the legal position is decided. My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that that is so.

Dr. Stross: I am greatly obliged to my hon. Friend, who has a vast legal knowledge of this subject. But I too keep my eye on the medico-legal side. I heard this morning that the Coal Board, after pressure from the National Union of Mineworkers have agreed temporarily to make ex gratia payments, and to resume payment where payment was stopped. I

have examples of many cases in which payment had stopped and in which the Coal Board are now offering to repay the men concerned temporarily, until these cases are decided.
Indeed what I am talking about is this method of using every loophole and hiding behind every legal barrier in the case of men most of whom are not now in the union, who cannot defend themselves and who have to rely on charity in their old age. They must go to the union and say "Will you take up the case for us? We have not been members for some years because we have been out of the industry for a number of years."
There is something, seriously wrong about all this. I know that, in part, it is because personnel who were taken over to handle this kind of work have been brought up in a school in which one had to save money or one did not get on, and one could only save money at the expense of human beings. I am sure that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will not hesitate to say to the Coal Board, "Do you know that this sort of thing is going on? Do you think Parliament ever wished you to save money at the expense of those old people who have spent a lifetime in the industry and who are now diseased as a result of their work?" We must insist that we desire a more humanitarian outlook. I do not care if there are only 10 or 100 cases or how little or how much it will cost. This matter must be put right if only because it is a shame and disgrace to us and to the nation.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: I am very glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). I have listened with deep interest to his powerful and moving plea for the people in the mining industry who suffer from this distressing disease which goes under the generic title of pneumoconiosis. Perhaps more steps might now be taken to get the fullest measure of X-ray diagnosis of everyone who works in the mines in order to track down this disease in its earliest stage.
I believe that is a very serious problem, and it is rather interesting that we started this Debate with the Minister standing up and speaking of this industry in a very defensive sort of way and


failing to, or apparently not being willing to, admit in any degree that there was anything wrong with it. It was only gradually that the Debate went on to more practical lines. It was only when we started to discuss on objective lines this national asset, which is what the coal industry is, that these various problems have arisen. It has been made apparent by hon. Members on both sides in how many directions the National Coal Board are not doing the job that they might be expected to do for the industry.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central raised the distressing problem of pneumoconiosis, and I heard with great interest an hon. Member talking about difficulties arising through what I can only call the rather rigid handling by the Coal Board of what I agree is necessary redistribution. Why make it so bureaucratically rigid? It has come out on both sides during this Debate that there is a great need for a more humane spirit in the operations of this Board. It is no longer a matter of political controversy whether the industry is nationalised or not. I am very glad that we have come down to the basis of trying to discuss the industry fairly and factually, to see how we can make it work in the national interest.
That is what brings me to intervene in this Debate. In dealing with relations with consumers, the Report says, on page 50, that:
The Board regard it as an important part of their functions to keep in touch with buyers and to know their wants.
In this Debate on this nationalised industry it is right that the point of view of the consumers should be made—and by that I do not mean the private consumer, who has been adequately dealt with by some of my hon. Friends. I mean the component that coal represents in industrial costs. It is right that at this stage one should be able to look at this industry from a strictly business point of view, and try and see how it is playing its part in the national economy.
It is from that point of view that I question whether the opening speeches, and particularly the speech of the Minister, really did the industry any service, or really paid any great heed to the actual facts of the situation. I, no doubt, like every hon. Member, received a copy of

the document entitled "Coal." In it appears an interview with Lord Hyndley, headed "A Talk with the Chairman." When I came to this Debate, I thought that our deliberations would be based somewhat on the answers Lord Hyndley gave to some very pertinent questions put to him.
I should like to bring one question particularly to the attention of hon. Members. Under the heading, "Frankly, is the story of 1949 a good one?" his reply was, "Well, it is and it is not. There has been a lot of progress but, good as it was, it could have been better." In answer to the question, "Where do you think we went wrong? "he replied, "Not enough men turned out regularly for work." Another case was dirty coal. That does not seem to square frightfully well with the opening speech of the Minister.
We might now examine coal from my point of view, which is that of an industrial user to whom it represents a most important factor in export prices. After all, enough hon. Gentlemen have put the point this evening that coal is our single asset that we control entirely, because we live on top of it. I do not agree with the contention that, merely because the price of coal has risen in proportion to the price of other raw materials, the Coal Board are entirely blameless, and are producing coal at the right price. That is not my view. In the case of the one national asset that we control, we should be able to supply industry at a comparatively low price compared with the raw materials we have to import from the world.
Great service would be done to the industry if we could buy the quality of coal we want. I admit that large efforts are being made by the Coal Board to obtain that quality for industry. They are trying to get the right quality for the right purpose, but they are not succeeding. A particular works in which I am interested uses "gedling," which is no doubt a familiar term to some hon. Members opposite. It is the only coal for our particular purpose which provides the right temperatures and the right calorific values. But we cannot get "gedling" today. Those are the things to which I thought we should be turning our attention in this Debate, instead of


trying to put up some umbrella defence for the National Coal Board as an organisation which is not to be subject to criticism or examination in any way.
As to another industrial use of coal, I understand that British Railways are designing a standard locomotive. I wonder whether the coal-consuming capacity of that locomotive will be based on the best figures ever achieved on the railways previously for example, based on the coal consuming capacity of the Great Western Railway which had the lowest poundage per mile coal consumption of any railway system. Or I wonder whether that engine will have to be designed to burn the lowest grade of coal, because that is all the Coal Board can now guarantee to the railways, and therefore its operating efficiency will be that much decreased. This is, after all, the kind of service which will justify the National Coal Board or fail to justify it. In the long run this is the thing on which not only full employment in this country depends, but on which prosperity and full employment in the mining industry depends.
I am not going to address any questions to the Parliamentary Secretary, but I am going to say this to him. I imagine that this is probably the last chance for quite a long time that we shall have to discuss the Coal Board, and it will then retire behind its Parliamentary screen and continue its operations not subject to any Questions in this House. I hope it will be borne in mind all the time that the eventual stability of the industry as a whole depends entirely on whether in the long-term it can meet the needs of industry and provide the type of coal that industry wants at a reasonable price so that industry can compete in overseas markets.
It is all very well to say that fuel represents two or three per cent of manufacturing costs. It may be possible to apply such a figure over the whole of industry, but it is certainly not the figure in my industry and in many other industries. It is essential, with German competition increasing and with competition increasing all over the world, that this question of cost and of service, which means providing the right quality at the right price, should be all the time in the forefront of the work of the Board. It is on that standard that it should be judged when we next examine it.
I believe as strongly as any hon. Members opposite that the miners are fully entitled to better conditions and particularly to the better money which they are able to earn today, and I agree equally fully that the Coal Board have not gone nearly quickly enough in developments, particularly relating to dust diseases and general welfare and health in the mines. Bearing in mind that the Coal Board have now got over-riding control, I am amazed that further steps in this direction have not been taken.
But I do hope as well that we shall never lose sight of the fact that all that structure, good though it is, and better though we hope it may be, depends on one thing only, and that is producing the right kind of coal at the right kind of price to service the industries of this country, including the gas and the electrical power industries. On that we stand or fall, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary at least to bear that factor in mind in the next year's work of this industry.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. P. Bartley: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of making some contribution to this very important Debate. It is important because this is the one occasion in the year when we as Members of the House of Commons can fully discuss the working of the nationalised coal mining industry. I am rather disappointed to find that so few Members of the Opposition have treated it as an important Debate. They have all declared how basically important is the success of the nationalised industry to our national economy. Surely if that is a sincere and earnest opinion, many more hon. Members of the Opposition should have been present for the discussion of this important Report.
Some Opposition speeches have been very badly informed and have shown little sense of what is going on inside the nationalised industry. One could have a delightful time in dealing with many points, especially those made by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). Obviously he had a lack of any sense of what is taking place in the industry, particularly when he said that the colliery manager is no longer a leader amongst his men. I can tell him that in my part of the country, colliery managers are taking a much fuller


part in leadership in social affairs and in affairs attached to the industry than ever they took before in the history of the industry. Last Saturday a Durham miners' leader and myself attended a demonstration in the district unfurling a miners' large banner in readiness for the bigger meeting which will be held for the whole of the county in Durham City next week. Taking part was the local colliery manager. Next Saturday managers will be walking with the miners" lodge banners at a big meeting in Durham City.
It is wrong to suggest that there is not the social co-operation and understanding amongst the managers and officials of the industry that there was before; there is much more of it. We are delighted to see that co-operation in the miners' villages and the leadership that is being shown. I can assure hon. Members opposite that there is much greater leadership by colliery managers and by colliery officials in many mining villages in Durham County today than ever they dared to take under private enterprise. I did not intend to deal with points raised by other hon. Members in this Debate but it has been suggested that we did not expect any criticism of nationalisation. Some hon. Members opposite have disproved that kind of suggestion. I shall be critical, but not in a destructive sense; I hope I shall be constructive in the three or four points with which I intend to deal.
Hon. Members have mentioned the moral and social implications of the many reorganisation schemes, which involve the transfer of men from one part of the coalfield to another part or from one coalfield to another. Perhaps the Minister could assure us that the decisions which bring about these reorganisation schemes are not made on narrow economic grounds. We appreciate that where the coal is exhausted in some coalfield, or in part of the coalfield, the only alternative is to close down and transfer workers to other parts of the coalfield or to other fields. We have the statement, however, that there are seven million tons of coal still in Lanarkshire.
Similarly, we know of other parts of a coalfield where coal still exists but, on narrow economic considerations, those parts of the coalfield are closed, work is stopped and the men transferred. I suggest that in those cases the Board

ought to take into account the wider sociological considerations. After all, this is a nationalised industry: it is not purely private enterprise making a profit at any cost. The cost of the sociological implications may be greater than the money saved through closing the pit down if the economy is related to the industry as a whole.
I turn to capital expenditure. We have not heard much about that this afternoon. I know from experience in the industry that there is a very close follow-up in regard to the effects on output and costs when any advance is given on piece-rate payments. I should like to be assured that in the administration of the industry there is at least an equally close follow-up in regard to capital expenditure, because one does hear from time to time of equipment and machinery being installed that costs many thousands of pounds, and it is doubtful whether the capital expenditure involved is really justified. So I should like to be assured that there is a close follow-up to see that capital expenditure in all cases is justified—a follow-up equally close as the follow-up in regard to the increased piece rates which are given from time to time to the piece workers in the industry.
My third point is this. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that consideration be given to the question whether the time has not been reached when the organisation—I use the term in the widest sense—should be looked at with a view to pruning from this nationalisation scheme some of the activities which do not naturally belong to the coal-mining industry. For example, farming is not naturally part of the coal-mining industry; and I suggest that brickyards are not naturally part of the industry.
The cost of maintaining houses is not primarily an industrial responsibility. It is a social responsibility. Yet the cost of this has increased by almost £100,000 during 1949. These are a few cases—I could mention others—of activities and expenses which are not naturally part of those of the coal-mining industry, and I suggest that those activities which do not naturally belong to this industry should be transferred to the appropriate Government Departments or to other industries to which they more naturally belong.
Another point I want to make is in relation to the Northern Division of which I have knowledge. There has been a change in parts of the British coalfield from which coal is exported to other countries. Let me digress a little here. While one tries to present some constructive criticisms, one does share the pride of the extended success of this nationalised industry. One's pride is increased by knowing that it has made a substantial contribution and is making a substantial contribution towards assisting Western European countries—Marshall Aid countries—to become independent of the United States of America.
I shall not give a lot of figures, but we know from the Report that in 1947 America exported 37 million tons of coal into Marshall Aid countries. Last year that figure was reduced to £10 million. Great Britain increased her exports from 7,000,000 to over 10 million tons over the two years—which is, I suggest, a substantial contribution, for which we should give great credit to the people engaged in the mining industry of Great Britain.
Now, let me narrow this matter of exports down to its effect on parts of the coalfield. Those of us who have been in the industry will remember that in pre-war years such areas as Scotland, Northumberland, Durham, and South Wales were in depression because of the lower prices received for coal exports. Now the change is that there is a higher price received for coal exports, but there are parts of the coalfield which do not benefit. I do not complain of this change in principle, but the fact is that a substantial amount of coal is now being sent from other divisions which were very small exporting areas in pre-war years, and they are now exporting coal which, normally, in pre-war years, would have been exported from Scotland, Durham and Northumberland. They are now getting the benefit of the additional £1 increase in the export price, and we are suffering in the northern coalfield—and likewise Scotland is suffering—because of the change in the export trade price. We suffered when the price was low and now we suffer when the price is high because of this sending of coal to other divisions.
It is noted in the Report that the Northern Division lost 1s. 11d. a ton during last year as against 3s. 4d. in the previous year. The change has reduced

the proportion of the nation's exports sent by Northumberland and Durham from 31 per cent. to 24 per cent., and the proportion of saleable output in those two counties has been reduced from 30 per cent. to 12 per cent. I suggest that there should be an arrangement within the administration of the National Coal Board whereby the recognised exporting coalfields could be reimbursed because of this re-arrangement by which coal is sent from other parts of the country, when Northumberland and Durham would not only cancel out their loss but would show a profit. If we sent 30 per cent. of our present saleable output we should be exporting in the region of 10 million to 12 million tons instead of the present 4,600,000. The £1 a ton for export coal would help us cover the cost and leave a profit out of the 40 million tons produced during the year.
In that connection, it must also be borne in mind that the Northern Division is the only coalfield in which the National Coal Board has its own coal staithes and can transport the coal to those staithes. In other parts of the country they have to use British Railways or the Harbour Commissions. I ask the Minister, with the Coal Board, to give some consideration to the point about the export coal, so that Scotland, Northumberland and Durham, and South Wales, which were the recognised exporting coalfields in prewar years, may have an improved position because of the increased price that is received for export coal.

8.52 p.m.

Brigadier Clarke: I shall detain the House for only a few minutes, but I feel that someone should try to speak on behalf of the consumer. There is a document which I do not normally quote called "Labour Believes in Britain." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but no hon. Member opposite has said this today. It says:
The voice of the consumer must ring out with strength and emphasis.
So far today, I have heard a lot of miners' delegates saying how well the miners have done. I should like to speak on behalf of the people in Portsmouth and other poor towns, the ordinary common people in the street, who expected that when the coal industry was nationalised they would get their coal


at the same price throughout the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There was no reason why they should not think that. A soldier before the war could get fuel and light in London or Hong Kong at the same price, although it cost a lot of money to take the coal to Hong Kong. In Portsmouth, however, I paid 3d. a unit for light, when the local cost was only 1½d. I say that this country should have coal at the lowest possible price through out the country.
I have had a number of letters objecting to this scheme of the Coal Board to charge more for coal in the winter than in the summer. The poor people have nowhere to put the coal; they cannot store it, so they cannot buy the coal at the present cheap price, and they will he forced to suffer in the winter when the coal is sold at the higher price to compensate for the cheap price now. This is done in order to let the Minister have an easy time if there is a cold spell during the winter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is an old standing commercial practice of the trade.

Brigadier Clarke: I do not mind what was the practice in the trade. We are now nationalised. If the merchant did not sell the coal at the cheapest price, he could be sure that a merchant round the corner would sell it. Now we have to go to one person for the fuel, and, bad as it is, we have to take it. I am sure hon. Members will agree that no one can say that we are getting this stuff "dirt cheap."

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton: I am glad to have two or three minutes in which to add a few remarks. We are interested on this side to see the interest that the Opposition are taking in the consumer. I come from a producing area, Durham, although I represent a Scottish division, and I remember, although hon. Members opposite do not like us to remember, the period between the wars. I was the son of an unemployed miner, and after going to the grammar school I had to go to the pithead to pick coal. That is the difference between a nationalised industry and private owners.
It is a striking reflection on the Opposition that in the previous Debate on dirty

coal, their leader was an expert on agriculture and in this Debate their leader is an expert on seaside resorts.

Mr. Bracken: I have spent much longer in the mining industry than the hon. Gentleman has.

Mr. Hamilton: We look forward to the next coal Debate when we may perhaps tind the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) leading the Opposition.
I have one or two brief points to make concerning the miners. I feel that one shortcoming of this Debate has been the tendency to praise the administration and the technical machinery and not to pay sufficient attention to the human element in the industry. After all it is the miners who dig the coal. I say frankly that the hon. Member for Both well (Mr. Timmons) was quite right when he said that there will be an extension of the unrest in Scotland, and perhaps in England, if the lower-paid workers on £5 at the surface and £5 15s. underground do not get a rise in the very near future. It is all very well to say, "Let them negotiate; let them wait," but they cannot wait, because in the two and a half years during which they have had the guaranteed minimum, the cost of living has risen to such an extent that the man now on £5 a week has had an effective cut in his purchasing power of about 10s. That has to be remedied, and it can be remedied within the industry by making the former owners wait for their money.
We on this side of the House, accept the principle of compensation, but there is no reason why the former owners should not wait instead of the lower-paid workers in the industry having to wait. I appeal to the Minister to give that question further consideration. In three years the former owners have had £43 million as compensation, while these men on £5 and £5 15s. have to go home to their families and ask their wives to keep them on something less than £5. I urge the Minister to consult with the N.C.B. and the National Union of Mine Workers to see whether something cannot be done about reducing this compensation to the former owners, if not abolishing it altogether. As we nationalise all the various industries, compensation will become an increasingly heavy burden on the national economy, and I think it is high time that we reviewed these proposals and remembered


the men who are digging the coal. I say to hon. Members opposite who criticise: Get down and dig a bit.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: I shall do my best, in winding up the Debate for the Opposition, to give an impartial survey of the work of the National Coal Board in the course of 1949. There is one point I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary before I come to that broad aspect, and that is on this question of pneumoconiosis to which both the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) referred, and in regard to which I found myself largely in agreement with them. We all know that this comes under the National Insurance Act, and that we are faced with the five-year limit of a man working in the mines for compensation purposes. The reason for this is that it has been awfully difficult in the past to diagnose the disease.
In the last two years, we have now got a pracjcally fool-proof diagnosis of the disease. In view of that, I think it might be, as it often takes a long time to discover—it is no good the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) shaking his head.

Mr. Tom Brown: There is no apparatus at the moment that can diagnose accurately the complaint from which our men suffer such excruciating pain and death. We are finding that when men who have received compensation, after being certified to be suffering from silicosis, pass on and a post mortem examination is held, they have not been suffering from silicosis but from some other trouble
and vice versa.

Mr. Raikes: There is this difficulty, but I think I am right in saying that in the last two years we have got nearer a fool-proof diagnosis than ever before. That being so, is there not a case for trying to go beyond the five-year limit? It is necessary, of course, to get some estimate of the cost. A Question was put the other day to the Minister of National Insurance asking whether she could calculate the cost of abolishing the five-year limit. She told us that she had no information. I suggest that the Ministry and the National Coal Board could find out the cost if they circulated the lodges, and that if it showed a reasonable

amount, we should spread the thing out retrospectively.
I believe that would be a great advantage to a large number of people who, until recently, have been in an impossible position. I know we are told that there are not enough doctors for everyone at the pits to undergo an examination by the new X-ray apparatus, but I am informed that skilled technicians could be used for this purpose. If that were done, it would be possible to have every man examined at the pit, which would help in preventing the extension of this disease. I hope that the Minister, whatever other storms we get into will make some comment on that, and will meet us to whatever extent he can.
I pass now to the broad lines of this Report. Quite frankly, I regret the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He knows quite well that both my right hon. Friend and other speakers on this side of the House, including myself, time after time, during the last year, have said that whether we like it or not, we have to accept nationalisation and try to make it work in some form or another. I do not think there is any disagreement on that. If that is so, surely it would be advisable to consider how far the Coal Board in its present form has worked effectively during the past year, rather than to give what I should say, without offence, was a one-sided picture of the industry as it stands today, coupled with a panegyric on nationalisation in general.
I am quite prepared to look first of all for a moment to see if there is anything that can be spoken of favourably. There is one thing about which there will be unqualified approval. All of us are delighted that last year was a year of the lowest fatalities and less injuries than was ever known in the coal industry. If in following years, the National Coal Board can beat that record, it will always be welcome on all sides of the House.
Having said that, I am bound to qualify whatever praise I may give to any other part of this Report. The question of exports has largely been dealt with. We know that exports are larger than they were in 1948, but we also know that quite apart from the fact that world prices are likely to fall, and are falling, the whole international viewpoint as expressed in the Schuman Plan


and other such proposals is against duality of price as between home and abroad. That is going to be lost before very long, and if it is lost, as matters stand at the moment, the Board's paper profit goes. Also the Board are faced beyond that with other grave difficulties, which, as Lord Hyndley has put it, are not short term but will grow as the months go by. Do not let us assume that the money which has been got from exports is to continue in the future.
So far as production is concerned, five million more tons were produced than in the previous year. No one will deny that, but at the same time I am delighted that the Minister and, indeed, the Coal Board apparently take the view now that production per man-year and not production per man-shift is the important figure. In 1949 production was somewhere about 20 tons per man-year below the figure of 10 years ago, in 1939. I would add the point, although it is a minor one, that the figures are slightly worse than that, because in pre-war days in calculating output per man-year, non-industrial staff were included as well as industrial workers, and that is not the case in the figures that are produced at the present time.
Then we pass to quality. The quality for industrial use is slightly better in 1949 than in 1948. In so far as the calorific value of coal is an improvement it is all to the good, but it is still below pre-war for the industrial user, and last year was a record worst year for the domestic user in getting coal. According to the Report, the domestic user got one million tons less coal than in 1948, and only 67 per cent. of the coal which the domestic user got in pre-war days. No one can pretend that the quality that the domestic user gets is anything but what is left over. It is the last scrape out of the barrel.
One has to accept that there has been some slight increase in quality for the industrial consumer, but to realise that the general position for the industrial user is below its pre-war level. The domestic consumer has got less coal in the past year than he got before the war, and he has been getting a far worse quality. Those are the things which are considerable qualifications of the picture painted by the Minister.
The speech of the Minister was more remarkable for what it left out than for what it had in. The Minister barely mentioned the fact that the coal stock position today is considerably more serious than it was a year ago, in 1948. If we are in a position, as we are, when coal consumption is catching up and is passing production, we are heading for a fall and for a very serious state of affairs.
It is always boasted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he deals with British production that our production of almost everything has gone up by a very large amount since 10 years ago. We have to face the fact that the coal position, compared with the position 10 years ago, is undoubtedly depressing. Last year it was between 202 million and 203 million tons, compared with just over 231 million tons in 1939. We are therefore down, on paper, by 29 million tons as compared with the position 10 years ago.
I am not trying to be controversial or to go outside the scope of the Report when I say that we must bear in mind that the quality of coal has deteriorated and is still worse than it was before the war, and that therefore the real difference in the amount of burnable coal between now and 10 years ago is not really 29 million tons but is probably, on a conservative estimate, at least 40 million tons. I think I have even now understated it. I prefer to understate the case in these matters.
We must bear in mind also that the output per man is still under 20 tons per man-year lower than it was 10 years ago. We are bound to face the fact that all is not satisfactory at a time when other industries are spurting above their old production. I know that it is sometimes argued that the reason is that this industry was in a terrible condition when taken over by the Coal Board and faced with grave and grievous difficulties after years of private enterprise. That argument is in many ways unsound. I am not going into the old nationalisation versus anti-nationalisation argument, but I will take the view of His Majesty's Government when they took over the coal industry. The year in which His Majesty's Government took over the coal industry was that in which they decided on their forecast


of coal production for a period of years ahead under the Marshall Plan.
I will remind the House of the figure which the Government gave in regard to this industry. It was a figure for deep-mined coal. I hope that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will not get up and tell me that I have given the wrong figure because it includes opencast coal. This figure does not include opencast coal. The figure laid down under the Marshall Plan for 1948 was 200 million tons. We produce 196,500,000 that year. The figure for 1949 was 210 million and we produced between 202 million and 203 million.
The deficit grows. For 1950 it was 220 million tons of deep-mined coal, and it is obvious from the figures which we have seen for the first 23 weeks of this year that we shall be lucky to get 205 million tons, unless there is an amazing spurt later. The forecast for 1951 is 230 million tons, or back to the pre-war figures, and we know from every factor that we see before us that there is not the slightest likelihood of getting near the old pre-war figure of 230 million tons in 1951.
I claim that on the Government's own forecast the Coal Board has worked far worse than they expected it to work. Each year the deficit is growing against the forecast made in 1947. The Parliamentary Secretary gave a very curious answer to the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) when he said that the forecast was raised because a number of the importing countries grossly over emphasised what their needs for coal would be under the Marshall Plan. They may have done so, but that is not the point. The point is what the Government thought they could produce in deep-mined coal in 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951. If their figures do not mean that that was what they expected they could produce, they mean nothing at all. I am sure that those figures indicate what the Government thought they could do.
We must bear in mind that during those 10 years mechanised cutting in the pits has increased from 59 per cent. to about 80 per cent., and yet we have this lag which, quite frankly, may hold back and destroy the main hopes of British prosperity in the course of the next few years unless we can find a way out. I said earlier that we had to be able to keep

pace with increased consumption. I have glanced at the figures for stocks for the first 23 weeks of this year and of last year. We have produced a little more coal this year but our needs have become far greater. In the first 23 weeks of 1949 we had to draw 2,500,000 tons out of stock and our figure of distributed stocks on 24th June, 1949, was just under 12 million tons. In the first 23 weeks of this year we have had to draw out 5 million tons from stock, and our distributed stock figure is now 10,500,000.
That is after the Coal Board have stated in the Report that if we had had a hard winter last year the domestic consumer might have gone very short. It should be remembered that it was a mild winter and the domestic consumer had less coal than he has had in any year. What may be the position if we have a hard winter now when already our stocks are 1,500,000 tons less than they were this time last year and when we are trying to increase our exports still further? We are faced by the fact that if we have a hard winter we shall probably have to cut our export figure, and if we have a really hard winter it is quite on the cards that we shall be faced with something not unlike the hold-up that we had at the beginning of 1947.
On those figures I say that this Report, admirably laid out as it is, is not hopeful from the point of view of British industry but is alarming. My right hon. Friend quoted Lord Hyndley's statement in the "News of the World." I will only refer to it for a moment:
Either we get more coal or the whole basis of British life may be threatened. Things cannot go on like this. I doubt if the country realises the gravity of the position.
Are not the words of the Chairman of the Coal Board much nearer to what my right hon. Friend and I have said this afternoon than the impression which would be given to an outside observer who had merely heard what the Minister said in his speech? That is what I mean by a seeming complacency.
With regard to absenteeism, according to the Report 8,000 men were sacked in the course of last year for persistent absenteeism. I have not much sympathy with the persistent absentee, but I have quite a bit of sympathy with the fellow who is doing a hard job and who takes an occasional day off because I know it


is precisely what I should do myself on occasions.
I want to put to the Minister two of the main difficulties we have to face. We have the pits filled with machinery, far more than they have ever been before, for coal cutting anyhow I know we are behind with coal cleaning but coal cutting is at the rate of 80 per cent. Are the Government satisfied that up to now the men have made full use of the existing machinery to get the fullest possible output? My view is that they have not, and that the real trouble is not absenteeism but that the machinery is used rather to ease the labour than to use it to its utmost capacity to spring up production to the height to which it could be sprung. When my right hon. Friend was speaking, someone said, "You have no proof." The only proof I would give is one more quotation from Lord Hyndley in that same article in the "News of the World." He said:
There are too many instances of deliberate ca'canny"—
That is not absenteeism—
We must have at least 5 million tons more this summer than we are getting if we are to face the winter with any confidence.
For heaven's sake, do not let us ignore that warning. That means we have to get 210 million tons if we are to get through this winter with any confidence because the figures up to April, when Lord Hyndley wrote that article, were between 204 and 205 million. If Lord Hyndley's reference to deliberate "ca'canny" means anything, it means that the machinery is not being used to its fullest capacity. But of course we have had a statement from the Minister—

Mr. Bracken: A wonderful statement.

Mr. Raikes: If he is right that the trade unions are prepared to use all the machinery in the pits at full blast in the months that lie ahead, the Minister may be the greatest pioneer the coal industry has ever known. However, we shall wait to put up a statue until we see what happens, because until now we have had this check No. 1, full use not made of the machinery. I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that, with full use of the machinery, within a few years we could produce not only more coal than we produced before

the war but could probably produce it with 400,000 or 500,000 men—

Mr. Bracken: And much higher wages.

Mr. Raikes: And much higher wages. I am not afraid of a reduction in the number of people working in the coal industry because I think the tendency will be for reduction, and that does not matter if we are making full use of the machinery. Otherwise, it will be a tragedy. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to make any suggestions to elaborate the statement of his right hon. Friend on the way in which the use of machinery is to be speeded up. I should have thought that to ensure its greatest use in the pits some alteration in the working of P.A.Y.E. might have been advantageous. It may be said that I am perhaps boggling a little on the question of incentives, but I do not think that I am.
On the other side of the picture there is the question of dirty coal. We know that about 50 per cent. of the coal is now cleaned mechanically, and one realises the difficulty of separating coal, particularly if cut by mechanical means, but the Report states frankly that we do not have sufficiently good separation of coal where this is done by hand; no one would deny that it is much worse now than before the war. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what new steps are being taken to try to enforce the same care in separating coal that was exercised 10 years ago? Unless we get cleaner coal, the trouble with consumers will grow rather than lessen and the difficulties with the export industry will become even greater. Not only have we to get back to the state of clean coal of 10 years ago, but we must increase production to what it was in those days.
I have not time to go in detail into costs, but when the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with this matter he made, I think, one minor error. He followed the Report when he said that from 1934 onwards until the present year there had been an advance in costs. The first, check, however, came in 1946. The costs of production for that year, taking the average for the year, were 1d. less. A further rise followed but there has been a drop of 6d. this year. The right hon. Gentleman also said that costs were now 8s. 5d. or 8s. 6d. higher than when the Government took over the industry in 1947. His figures, of course, were those


for only the last quarter of 1949. The average for the year is roughly 9s. higher compared with 1946. Nor does the increase consist only of miners' wages—far from it. Wages amount, I think, to about 3s. 6d. out of that 9s.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The figure is 5s. 5d.

Mr. Raikes: I think that that covers more than wages and includes what has been set aside for miners' compensation. I am not bothering very much with the figures but I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary and the House that in spite of what the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) said, between 1946 and 1949 administrative costs almost doubled and salaries have gone up.
My final words to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary are these. I have deliberately avoided Parliamentary dialectics in what I have said, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do the same. We have the darkness of threatening war all round Europe and the world. It is vital that the coal industry shall have every opportunity of progress, including the reorganisation of the Coal Board if we are to step up production, at any rate, to what it was when war broke out in 1939. We must not have a smaller target than that and it has got to be speedy. Do not be afraid, and even if suggestions come from this side do not consider that those suggestions are of necessity unwise.
We are lagging behind what we ought to do, we are lagging behind what the Government thought they could do under Marshall Aid proposals. For heaven's sake get going with a spirit of urgency. In every urgent step the Government are prepared to take to speed up coal production, they will receive not only the co-operation but the enthusiasm of this side of the House.

9.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I hope to pick up the arguments of the hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes) in the course of my reply to the many points that have been made in the Debate. However, I wish to cross swords with him for a brief moment. I am certain he would not wish to mislead the House, but he said that the pre-war output covered non-industrial as well as industrial workers. My information is that that is not so, but that it has always been based on wage earners on the

colliery books ana has been on the same basis throughout.

Mr. Raikes: I do not want to waste time on that, but I noticed in the Coal Board's Report a reference to the alteration in basis, which I think they say had been made in 1946. They said it was under one per cent.—.5 per cent.—and I think that was due to certain persons not being included per man-year before. We need not waste time on that, however.

Mr. Robens: The hon. Member did say that the targets for coal production put out by the Government about 1947 proved to be very wide of the mark, but it may be that our assumption of the bag of assets we took up when we nationalised the industry, was also very wide of the mark and that what we thought we would have with which to produce the coal was not really there. The hon. Member said he was disappointed with—or perhaps he used the words "regretted the tone" of—my right hon. Friend's speech. It is an amazing thing, when we hear from hon. Members opposite that they now want to have this kind of Debate as a Council of State, to find that they always regret the tone of the Front Bench on the Government side, but pay no attention to the tone of speeches by right hon. Gentlemen on their side. The strange thing is also that on this side of the House my right hon. Friend's speech was received with great acclamation. Here it was thought to be a good speech, and the hon. Member who represented the Liberal Party today thought it was a good speech. Only hon. Members of the Conservative Party thought it was not a good speech, and therefore they have been defeated by two parties to one.
The view which hon. Members opposite took of my right hon. Friend's speech is the view which I take of the speech of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken). I thought it was a regrettable speech. I am certain that he came to the House to enjoy himself. He did enjoy himself, and he is entitled to enjoy himself in this House. After all, when one has descended from the gay great height of being the greatest and finest First Sea Lord since Admiral Porter, K.C.B., in H.M.S. "Pinafore," one is entitled, having sat all these years without any navy at all, to come and enjoy oneself.

Mr. Bracken: I know the hon. Gentleman has spent a lot of time preparing this crude joke, but really even a co-operator who spent his life sanding sugar should know that no politician can be First Sea Lord. A number of politicians of varying value, including the former Mr. A. V. Alexander, have held the post of First Lord of the Admiralty, but the hon. Gentleman should know that the post of First Sea Lord is not open to any of the boys opposite, or on this side of the House either.

Mr. Robens: The right hon. Member went over a great many matters in this Report, some in great detail, and on others he briefly sketched his views, but when he went into great detail about exports, quality and price, all he could say I think could be summed up in one word and that was emphasised by what the hon. Member for Garston also said. The key to the whole situation is, I think, admitted in all parts of the House, and certainly by the Coal Board, my right hon. Friend and myself, to be production. There is no question about that.
The amounts available for the export market and the amounts available for the domestic market are entirely dependent on what total amount of coal we have in one year after we have provided for the essential industries of this country. If Britain is to achieve economic independence, it would be fatal to deny to the gas, electricity, railway, iron and steel and other industries all the coal they need to maintain full employment in this country, to keep everybody at work and to keep production steadily mounting from year to year. Having provided for all this in 1949, all one had left was 30 million tons of coal for domestic use, and about 20 million tons for exports and foreign bunkers.
Therefore, the key to the whole situation, as I see it, is production. So we should look at this Report and see how production is going. As has been said already, output in 1949 increased by five million tons over 1948. It was an increase of 2½ per cent. The actual increases were fairly good. The increase due to greater output per man-shift for the past year was 6.7 million tons; the increase due to the increased number of face workers was 2.3 million tons. Then come the two unhappy events which bring this nine million extra tons down to five

million. We lost 2.2 million tons due to fewer working days and we lost 1.8 million tons due to less regular attendance.
These are facts which stare us in the face and of which we, and the Coal Board, are well aware. I say quite frankly that the amount of increase was disappointing, but at the same time we cannot minimise the physical conditions confronting the industry. After all, coal is a wasting asset. As time goes on, the difficulties of producing coal increase. Time and again my hon. Friends have pointed out that year by year coal has to be brought up from a greater depth and from thinner seams of lower quality, and expensive technical developments are necessary merely to offset the increase in the natural difficulties.
I asked for figures in respect of some popular seams well known in this country. They startled me. While I will not weary the House with all of them, let me pick out one or two. The well-known Barnsley seam, and the Top Hard of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire were worth 10 per cent. of the total output of the country in 1938. The Barnsley seam provided 38.8 per cent. of the Yorkshire coal. It now provides only 29.7 per cent. of the Yorkshire coal: we have had it; it has been burned; it can no longer be got. The Top Hard in Nottinghamshire in 1938 produced 40.2 per cent. of the total that came out of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. What is it today? It is 29.7 per cent, because it has gone. These figures, many more of which could be given for other well-known seams, show the physical difficulties which must be met when comparing 1938 figures or 1939 figures with 1949. These natural difficulties must be considered, and not to do so is to be grossly unfair to the industry.
There must therefore be a great development programme. Well, have the Board got a decent development programme? I say that this Report shows that they have, and that they have taken energetic measures to do two things: to have a short-term development programme and a long-term development programme. It is a great pity that they must have those two programmes side by side, because they frequently clash; frequently one does not always help the other. There has been a backlog of work.


I am not complaining that that is all due to the old ownership of the pits, because we had a war lasting a long time, during which many developments could not take place. But there has been that backlog, and the Board, in the years that they have been in charge of the industry, have got down to the job of developing those two programmes—on the short-term programme £42 million, on the long-term programme £17 million, and some £16 million of expenditure on miscellaneous works in connection with the industry.
In 1949, they spent £31 million on capital account compared with £25 million in 1948. It really is quite a big programme. The spending of that money in the pits, in view of the slow rate of progress that can be made in driving new headings and doing the tunnelling that has to be done, gives an indication to those who know the industry of the enormous amount of development work that is going on. What else does that do? It takes all those men who could be producing coal away from producing coal on to this development work. Therefore, with a backlog of development work and a great deal to make up, it is obvious that productivity is reduced, although these men are still on the colliery books.
The right hon. Gentleman told us something about the value of by-products. He need not tell hon. Members on this side of the House about the value of by-products. For years we complained that lots of people made money out of these byproducts, but that it never went back to the pits to the men who worked in those pits. The National Coal Board have a great coking plant programme. At Nantgarw, in an area that has been desolated, there is this vast new scheme of coking plants. All those are included in their accounts, and I therefore say that we cannot complain about the development programme. I go further and say that the development programme of the National Coal Board is not retarded either by the Government capital investment limit or by labour and materials for doing the work. It is held back very largely because of shortage of technical people to carry out the regional plans.
Of course, absenteeism cannot be glossed over. It is unsatisfactory. But hon. Members opposite cannot complain about absenteeism in the coal-mining industry as though the miners were the

only people who ever had a day off work. The hon. Member for Garston frankly said that if he was in a hard, dirty and laborious job like a miner's, he would be inclined to take a day off from work. Now that miners, and particularly piece workers, are getting good wages, they can buy a day's leisure, which is perhaps what they do. All I would say to the miners is: please do not buy that leisure in these years; there will come a time when it will be possible to have greater leisure, but just now it is essential that we should get absenteeism down to the absolute minimum, so that we can build up this industry and make it prosperous, and bring about the time much more speedily when paid absence from work will be available at a much greater rate than it is today.
I do not believe that we can complain, recognising that production is the keynote of the situation. When I look at the Coal Board's Report, I do not think of those people appointed by the Minister who are in Hobart House, but I think of all the miners in the industry. I regard this Report as the industry's Report, and every miner in the industry is part of it. When we refer to the Coal Board's Report we are thinking of the industry as a whole, because today we have got men and management as partners in the enterprise and not as bitter enemies.
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch made some play about output per man year, but he must know that the output per man shift is the usual measure of productivity. After all, the output per man year comparison is only another way of criticising absenteeism. That is all. Having said what I think about absenteeism I will turn my attention to the figures of productivity, and see how we have fared there. The increase in productivity in 1949 was 5 per cent. I ask hon. Members to compare that with the increase in productivity of 10 per cent. in the six years before the war, from 1930 to 1936. That is an increase of 10 per cent. in six years before the war compared with an increase of 5 per cent. in 1949. I submit that that is not an unreasonable increase in productivity.
As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the output per man year in 1938 was 290 tons per man, and certainly that is


more than in 1949, when the figure was 282 tons, but the fact is that the increase in absenteeism between the two periods was not in 1949 fully offset by the increase in output per man shift. On the present form, however, not only will output per man shift in 1950 substantially exceed that of 1938, but the output per man year will also be higher. At long last we shall be in a position in which there will be one further deletion from the Conservative Central Office circular, which will no longer be able to tell the people to ask us questions about output per man year, because both output per man shift and output per man year will be greater than in 1938.
The right hon. Gentleman was concerned about the export prospects. Exports are going pretty well up to now. The Trade and Navigation Accounts are available to hon. Members, and there month by month, from January to May this year, there is a comfortable surplus over last year's exports. Indeed, it is averaging about 300,000 tons a month. If we continue at that rate throughout the whole of the year, we shall be exporting over 3½ million tons more this year than the 19 million tons that we exported in 1949. Whether this will be achieved I cannot say; I do not believe anyone can say, in view of all the uncertainties that must surround any predictions about coal output. After all, an error of 2 per cent. in the figure is not much as a percentage, but it represents four million tons of coal, which is quite a lot of coal.
One hon. Member said that British ships were at present engaged, not in carrying British coal abroad, but in carrying foreign coal abroad. Well, for over a century British ships have been carrying other people's goods, and may they go on doing it; it does not bother us too much. The right hon. Gentleman showed a good deal of knowledge about Africa and he brought this knowledge to bear by telling us that South African coal was likely to be a great competitor. That may well be. But we must put things in the proper perspective. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should come to the House and try to frighten, not hon. Members on this side of the House, but people outside who read what he has to say, by suggesting that South African coal is going to put us out of business.

Mr. Bracken: I was spreading the Coal Board's Report.

Mr. Robens: The right hon. Gentleman qualified what he had to say by telling us of his great experience in this matter. I point out that the present export surplus of South Africa is 2.4 million tons. They want half-a-million tons for bunkers and the great bulk of the balance is going to their own already established markets in West Africa, East Africa, the Indian Ocean or, in smaller measure, South America. One does get cargoes which spill over from those established markets of theirs into Europe, which we normally regard as our market, but the exports to Europe, where we compete, were only 100,000 tons in 1949—mainly to Italy. Bear in mind that South African coal is 50s. a ton f.o.b. compared with 75s. a ton f.o.b for United Kingdom coal. There are a number of factors which will limit South Africa's ability to go into British markets —shipping, the long distances from the pits to the ports, where many times it is over miles and miles of single-track railways.
I say that production is the key to this problem of more coal on the domestic market and of the ability to enter the export market to a much greater extent, and it is also the key to the quality problem on the domestic market because many coals which are on the domestic market, and about which merchants have complaints, are not bad coals in themselves. They happen to be the wrong coal for that market. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because of the shortage.
I had a deputation from Wales last week. What was their complaint? Their complaint was that we were sending 100,000 tons of Welsh coal abroad and sending them 100,000 tons of English coal for domestic use. If we had sent 100,000 tons of Welsh coal into Manchester or Birmingham, everybody would have complained saying, "This is slate; we cannot burn it because it is Welsh steam coal." They would have welcomed 100,000 tons from Yorkshire, but the Welsh regarded our English coal as being inferior, a poor coal, because they were accustomed to hard coal and they said that our coal burns away far too quickly, is tarry and smokes, and so on. Both were good coals if they had been in the right place, but because we have not sufficient, and because we are scraping the bottom of the barrel, as we are, these coals that are unsuitable for a


specific market often find their way there, and as a result there are complaints about dirty or bad coal which are not inherently complaints about the quality at all; it is just that it is the wrong type for the market.
We have a long way to go in this question of production. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) was complaining—or, rather, he was not complaining but was asking questions in his own inimitable way of my right hon. Friend a while ago—that there was a great surplus in Europe and wondering whatever would happen to us because of this great surplus. The hon. Member may be interested to know what are the future requirements of this country. We want 13 million tons more deep-mined coal so that we can get rid of the opencast coal and thus please hon. Members opposite. Perhaps I might interpose to say that if hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and other hon. Members opposite had their way, we should be 13 million tons short of what we are getting today.
We want five or seven million tons more coal for the domestic market. The domestic market is starved. We want many million of tons more, as the years go by, for the export markets which are already waiting for us. Our immediate need of deep-mined coal, if we can have it, is something between 220 million and 235 million tons. Therefore, do not let us start talking about cutting back production in this country when there is all that great need for such enormous quantities of coal. All that can be done in the way of improving production, both technically and by getting a greater amount of manpower more properly used, and by the upgrading of men, and so on, has got to be done; and the people who are in this industry arc fully conscious of that fact.
So I say to the right hon. Gentleman that when Lord Hyndley and Ebby Edwards make their speeches, he should not say they are defeatist speeches. They are not defeatist speeches at all, but they are telling the miners—the people who matter in this particular case—just exactly what the position is. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should be praising Lord Hyndley and should be praising Ebby Edwards and should be praising my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Bracken: Not the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robens: Yes—because it is notable that the only people who are really putting this case to the miners are those people, and my hon. Friends on this side of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to describe the National Coal Board as a board of bureaucrats. He talks about over-centralisation. He talks about a "litter of bureaucrats." He should know something about litter, anyway, because of the papers he keeps. He talks about more power for the area managers. But he does not produce one shred of evidence for what he says—not one single shred. The fact is the Reid Report itself did not lay down specific plans as to how this job should be done, and the only argument it put forward was whether the industry should he under private ownership or under public ownership. We decided in favour of public ownership. and we got on with the job, and we picked the industry up, and from that time forward there has been a constant devolution from the centre back to the pits.

Mr. Bracken: And a complete muddle.

Mr. Robens: The right hon. Gentleman says there has been a complete muddle. If he had ever worked in the coalfields, if he had ever experienced life under private enterprise and then life under nationalised enterprise, he would talk differently. There has been considerable devolution, and I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of something. I know he does not read reports. If he had read last year's Report he would have known all about the reorganisation of the Coal Board. However, it is too much to expect him to read two Reports in one year. However, he should know that the Coal Board is not "frozen" as he described it.

Mr. Bracken: "Not frozen"?

Mr. Roberts: Yes. He thought they were bound to organise the industry in the present way. Nothing of the kind. They are perfectly free to change the organisation. It is perfectly flexible. I suggest that those members of the Coal Board who for the last four years have been conducting this very difficult problem know a little more about how the job should be done than does the right hon.


Gentleman, who has not taken the opportunity to study it.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentlemen has taken up so much of my time that I have been unable to meet a lot of the points that have been made in the Debate and to make comments upon them. Besides, I wanted to say a few things of my own. But I do say that this Report is a good Report; it is one of which the industry can be proud, but not complacent; it marks the road that has to be traveled—

Mr. Bracken: Good. Keep it up.

Mr. Robens: —and it points the way ahead.

Mr. Bracken: Splendid.

Mr. Robens: We shall have difficulties, and many obstacles will have to be faced, but with the full co-operation of the management and men, with the tremendous loyalty that characterises the miners, the problems will be overcome, and a new era of prosperity—

Mr. Bracken: Fine.

Mr. Robens: —will be assured to this great nation of ours. I may add that I wrote that inspired by the right hon. Gentleman's sunny face across that Despatch Box.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That this House takes note of the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of the National Coal Board for 1949.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants in respect of petrol-driven machines used in connection with agriculture and of contributions towards costs of providing fertilisers used for agricultural land, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of grants in respect of petrol-driven machines used for agricultural operations;
(b) of contributions towards costs of providing fertilisers used on land under grass or ploughed up from grass; and
(c) of any expenses of administration incurred by a Minister for the purposes of the said Act of the present Session or of any scheme made under that Act.—[Mr. T. Williams.]
Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(SCHEMES FOR MAKING GRANTS FOR PETROL-DRIVEN MACHINES USED FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS.)

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, at the end, to insert:
and according to the extent of the user thereof.
This Clause is in respect of grants for petrol-driven vehicles, and it is our contention that the Clause as drafted would lead to a great deal of unfairness unless some such words as these were put in. The Parliamentary Secretary himself described the Clause as "rough justice," and I am sure that there can be no party division in this matter. None of us want to see rough justice to any body of citizens. We want to see if we can provide justice. Where it works unequally is that the Minister, in introducing this Bill, said:


the amount of grant payable in respect of particular machines will be fixed on the basis of the assumed average consumption, and the same grant would be payable to each farmer using one of these machines, whether he uses more or less than the estimated average of petrol."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 2662-3.]
The intention of the Clause is to give the Minister power to provide for higher grants where a machine is used a great deal and lower grants where a machine is used less, or even not at all. I say that the Bill, as drafted, will do nothing to stop the farmer receiving a grant for a machine which he owns and never uses. That clearly would be an impossible position. If, therefore, we give the Minister this power, we think that he should use it wisely and well. This will benefit, in our view, the small man. I did not think when the Parliamentary Secretary was trying to defend this Clause that his defence carried a great deal of conviction. He said:
If there is any element of unfairness"—
we certainly think there is a great deal—
with one man getting more, it will probably operate where we might say that a little extra would probably be very useful."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 2729.]
That is where I think this Clause, as at present drafted, will not operate. The man with two, three or four machines will gain, and the small man using one machine a great deal will get that much less. Therefore, we ask the Minister to accept this Amendment.
How practicable would it be to work out a differentiation of grant depending upon the user? This is done in the provinces of Canada. There they are using a method, which we are not allowed to use here, of giving a rebate on petrol tax. In many provinces that is operated by the farmer making a return of the amount he uses over six months. I think that we might use the same system here. The farmer would tell the agricultural committee what use he had made in the last six or 12 months of the machine, and his grant would depend on that return.
I am quite sure, knowing the farmers and knowing the county committees—and I think that the Minister will agree with me—that there would not be dishonesty in the making of these returns. They had for some time to send in returns

of user to the petroleum officers when there was petrol rationing. The county committees have knowledge of the quantities of petrol used by different farms in respect of these different machines. Unless we have some such words as this put in the Clause, it will be impossible for the Minister to differentiate between petrol engines that are linked up with machines which work 365 days in the year, and petrol engines which are used in machines which work for only a week in the year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) gave the illustration during the Second Reading Debate of the petrol engine used in an elevator, probably for 14 days in the year, and a petrol machine used in a milking machine that is worked for 365 days in the year. The Minister told us that he had powers under the Bill to differentiate between the two machines, but as they are both petrol machines and the only differential he allows himself under the Clause is to specify the kind of machines, I submit that he has not the power to differentiate between the two. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, which provides purely permissive powers. We are offering him something of which he can take advantage, but if he will not take the advantage, then his successor will be able, and willing, to do so.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I made it clear on Second Reading that a grant in respect of gallonage used on the lines indicated was ruled out by the Chancellor's Budget statement. Perhaps I ought to recall once again the fact that the Minister has all the powers he requires to differentiate, not only between machine and machine, but between any sort of conditions. Clause 1 (2) reads:
A scheme under this section may provide for different rates of grants in different cases and make the payment of grants subject to any conditions and, in particular,
I stress "subject to any conditions." Therefore, the Minister has all the powers he requires. As a scheme is already being prepared to provide grants to owners of specified machines on the basis of what I indicated in my speech on Second Reading, I do not think I ought to be asked to cover again the same ground.
There was a suggestion, implied rather than spoken, that the rate of the grant


might be reduced if the owner of a machine held it throughout the year and made no use of it. We were told that a farmer could own a machine which he never used and claim a grant. Of course he can do that, but so long as the Minister has the power within the scheme itself to lay down any conditions, that clearly is one of the conditions which would rule out that sort of person. If the suggestion is that the rate of grant might be reduced if the owner of a machine did not use it throughout the year, all I have to do is to recall the words of the Clause, that the Minister may provide for different rates of grant in different cases, and the payments of grant are subject to any conditions the Minister may care to lay down.
If any Member has in mind that there ought to be the possibility of pro rata grants for a machine not used throughout the year, I can only say that we hope to avoid any complications of that kind. For example, hon. Members opposite will know that a combined harvester thresher is usually only in seasonal use. Therefore conditions will have to be made for a machine of that description. There is no point in this Amendment anyhow, because the "scheme under this section" may provide the words which I have referred to, which govern the remainder of that particular section and in practice these words were actually inserted in the Bill. They may never be used, and this Amendment becomes useless since it is permissive as the hon. Member said.
On this Amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee and save time on subsequent Amendments if I were to give a short general indication of our intentions as regards the scheme to be made under this Clause. The scheme itself could not be prepared and laid until legislative authority for it has been given. Moreover, there are a number of points about it still under consideration, but the most important part of it will consist of a list of the kinds of machines for which claims for grants can be made and the amount of grant in each case.
It is intended that this list shall include all the machines in common use by farmers for the purpose of their agricultural operations, which use appreciable

quantities of petrol. It will include agricultural tractors whether they use petrol as their main fuel or only for starting, although, of course, the amounts in each case will be different. It is proposed also to include combined harvester-threshers, and pick up balers, whether they are self-propelled or tractor drawn, but include a petrol power unit to operate the working parts, and stationary engines used for driving milking machines, or for working pumps supplying water for livestock or crops, or for similar agricultural purposes will be eligible for grants. It is proposed also to include machines of one or two other small groups.
In assessing the amount of grant in each case, regard will be had again to the estimated average annual consumption of petrol by the machine on agricultural operations. Of course, no account will be taken of the petrol used in tractors and other machines used for road haulage purposes. As I said on Second Reading, discussions have taken place with the National Farmers Union and the Agricultural Engineers Association, and a large measure of agreement has been reached.
As a general indication of the size of the grant that may be made, perhaps I ought to say that tractors of the most common size, which burn vapourising oil, will attract a grant of between £2 and £3 per annum, and for petrol-burning tractors, which consume nothing else but petrol, the grant may be between £20 and £25, indicating the difference between the consumption of petrol by the different types of tractors. The grants for the other machines to be listed are likely to fall between these two sets of figures and generally to be nearer the lower one.
As regards conditions, the intention is that grants shall be paid only in respect of machines used in agriculture as defined by the Agriculture Act, 1947. It shall not extend to machines used on private gardens, golf courses, pleasure grounds, allotments and what not. These conditions will be clearly set out in the scheme. We propose to fix a date, possibly 1st January, on which claims may be made, allowing a three months' margin for any other claims. As I said earlier, there are outstanding points to be settled and we are trying to make the scheme as fair, simple, and workable as possible. That


sort of broad indication of what we had in mind will, I think, help the Committee at this stage of the Bill, and I should like, therefore, to emphasise that it is our intention to consider the possibilities at an early date of providing an alternative method of dealing with this particular problem. I can assure hon. Members that no time will be lost. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: The Minister's speech amply justifies my hon. Friend's Amendment, if it had not already been a very good Amendment on merit alone. Although we are grateful to the Minister for having unveiled a small portion of his scheme to implement Clause 1, the scheme shows more than ever how impossible it will be to work it fairly between one farmer and another. We argued that point on the Second Reading. At this stage I want to ask the Minister one or two questions on what he has said.
Probably the date of starting the scheme will be 1st January, and it will date back to the day in April when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement and the additional duty was put upon petrol.

Mr. T. Williams: Mr. T. Williams indicated assent.

Sir T. Dugdale: From what the Minister says, there will be an even greater widening of inequality than we thought in the first instance. It will be impossible to get even rough justice under this method. I admit that it is permissive, but my hon. Friend moved his Amendment to try to bring the grant back to the amount of petrol which is used in any one case. We believe that the whole case of the Minister was put in his first sentence, when he said that he would be unable to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment because of the statement made by the Chancellor in his Budget speech. We now realise that had it not been for the Chancellor's statement a very different scheme would have been put before us. That statement having been made, the Minister of Agriculture is precluded from using the method which he, his Department and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee

know to be the only common-sense way of making the scheme operate.
We are very disappointed with the Minister's statement. We still believe that the right way would be by quantity used and not by an ad hoc amount of money which will greatly differentiate between one farmer and another.

The Deputy-Chairman: In view of the speeches which have been made on this Amendment, I shall consider, when we come to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," whether to use my powers in regard to further discussion.

Mr. York: I should like to clear up the statement made by the Minister. Would he allow for a separate assessment of the use by each farmer of each of his instruments or implements? That is an important point. It will need a very considerable amount of work by his officials to ascertain, farm by farm, the amount of petrol likely to be used, or that has been used, by each individual farmer on each individual machine. We ought to be quite clear on that point before we leave the Amendment. Another point which we ought to call into question is that while the Minister has discussed and agreed upon these details with the National Farmers' Union, he is reluctant to discuss the same details with the House of Commons.
We are entitled to know all that is in the mind of the Minister about the schemes which he has been discussing with the N.F.U. It is material to our attitude towards a Bill which we all agree is a moderately poor Measure, if not a bad one. It is true that we have done our best to help the Minister in his fight with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that one must try to collect what crumbs of comfort one can from the schemes which the Minister is secretly devising with some outside bodies.
One further question I would like to have answered concerns the conditions mentioned by the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said that certain instruments used in private gardens would not be included. That one can understand. What I want to know is, what is the "what not" he mentioned? For example, does that include tractors used


on forestry? Does that include petrol-driven instruments used in certain ancillary occupations which are under the control of his Ministry, mentioned by one of my hon. Friends? This would be an appropriate occasion on which to clear up that point.
Like my hon. Friend I am a little clearer than I was when we started this discussion but, with a little more elucidation from the Minister, we might get at what is in his mind.

Sir T. Dugdale: On a point of order, Sir Charles, would it be convenient to the Committee to range wide on the Amendment and then have no further discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill "?

The Deputy-Chairman: Hon. Members have made three speeches that ought to have been made on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." If we have those now, I shall put that Question without discussion.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: The Minister's reply to the Amendment proves how difficult it is to deal adequately with the Committee stage of a Bill drafted in this way, because the Minister is asking the Committee to give him something in the nature of a blank cheque—the round sum may be filled in, but none of the details. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must realise that if he is going to apply this system of what he calls rough justice with rather a heavy hand in a general way to the agricultural community in respect of the rebate to which farmers are entitled for petrol-driven machines, he will cause not only a great deal with discontent but, worse still, great confusion and widespread anomalies.
I cannot think of any worse combination of three disadvantages than those three. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must realise that the rebate on petrol must in common justice, even on the basis of rough justice, bear some relation to the amount of petrol consumed in a given farmer's tractor, or any other petrol-driven machine, in a given year. Otherwise it will be a deterrent to the full use of a tractor, and that can only impair the efficiency of farming operations.
The right hon. Gentleman is asking us to accept a scheme the details of which

are quite unknown and which will be retrospective to some date back in April, so that a farmer who buys a new tractor or other petrol-driven machine for use in the harvest has not the remotest idea until the publication of the scheme in January, 1951, to what extent, if at all, that machine will qualify for any rebate. The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect the Committee to give him quite such wide powers in respect of quite such an undefined scheme.

Mr. Baldwin: The more I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the rougher I thought the justice is bound to be. I want to illustrate how rough it may be to some of the people who require assistance. If a flat rebate is given on all combine harvesters, how will the right hon. Gentleman give even rough justice to the small farmer using a contractor's machine for cutting corn, where the tractor is getting only the same rebate for cutting several hundred acres as will the tractor of a farmer who is cutting only 15 or 20 acres? The cost of harvesting to the small farmer is bound to be raised because of the rise in the cost of petrol. The rough justice will not even be rough justice to the small farmer.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment was unnecessary because he already had the power to deal with the extent of the user of petrol for agricultural machines under the earlier provision in subsection (2), that entitling him to make a grant subject to any condition. If he is entitled to do that, why does he require paragraph (a)? What conditions has he in mind?

Mr. T. Williams: Surely the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the law, scarcely need ask me that question. The subsection reads:
Subject to any conditions and, in particular. may … specify"—
this, that or the other.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: That is exactly as I read it, and the right hon. Gentleman must agree with me that paragraph (a) is entirely unnecessary. If he will be able to interpret the conditions referred to in the sentence which includes "Subject to any conditions" as including the provisions that we seek to insert by means of our Amendment, surely it can also be

##
interpreted as covering the conditions contained in paragraph (a). I am glad to observe that the right hon. Gentleman now has the assistance of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, whose opinion I value and who, I am sure. will share my views on this subject.
Apart from that, what the Minister has said illustrates the utter impossibility of being able to debate and improve substantially a Measure which is brought before the House in a manner like this. Even now, despite what the right hon. Gentleman has said, we do not know the details of the scheme which he intends to put into operation by virtue of the provisions of the Bill. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee, even after obtaining the legal advice which he has just received, that he yet knows what scheme he intends to put into operation under the powers he is asking Parliament to grant him. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated to us that he is still negotiating with certain interested bodies. I submit that it is not a proper procedure for any Government Department through the Minister to ask for general powers which they themselves have no idea as yet how they are going to use, while they are still in negotiation with those whom they call "interested parties."
10.30 p.m.
With regard to the application of the farmer, the right hon. Gentleman indicated that for petrol-driven tractors there would be a grant in the region of £25. What about petrol-driven jeeps and petrol-driven lorries used solely on a farm? From my own knowledge of the operations of a farm, I have reckoned that for the average farm of under 200 acres the additional petrol tax will cost in the region of £80. How is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting to the Committee he is going to deal with matters of that sort under the scheme he is still discussing and considering? He has given the Committee no indication at all. If he suggests that he is going to deal with it under the general provisions that he can make the scheme subject to conditions, he is not bringing it into the open sufficiently for the Committee to be able to discuss it. I submit that he should give us more detailed particulars than he has done.
On the question of the date of 1st January, 1951, I ask the right hon. Gentle-

man to reconsider this point. If he sticks to that date as the date prior to which farmers cannot make application for a grant in respect of the additional cost of petrol, he is causing the farmer to be out of pocket in the ensuing year for nine months' additional cost of petrol which, on a farm of about 200 acres, will be something in the region of £60. This is an excessive amount and it is not reasonable that the farmer should be asked to bear it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider that point and to enable farmers to make application at a much earlier date.
Finally, I again ask the Minister to reconsider the question specifically referred to in the Amendment, because it is impossible for any scheme to lay down a comprehensive standard of rebate on agricultural machines. There may be a series up to 10 machines on a farm all used for different purposes at different times, consuming different quantities and different ratios of petrol. The farming community should have a much greater knowledge in advance of what this Bill is going to mean to them than the right hon. Gentleman has given us.

Lieut.-Commander Baldock: I wonder if the Minister has considered the effect that this method of applying a rebate on the new petrol tax will have on the urban community. Unless it is done in the way which we suggest in this Amendment, on the proportion of the amount of petrol consumed, and if it is the form of a lump sum grant, as I understand it is likely to be, it must be regarded as a subsidy to farmers. I feel that from that aspect it would be even more serious than most subsidies in the eyes of urban communities, which are becoming increasingly critical of farmers costs; because it will be given on a commodity which urban people themselves use.
A subsidy upon fertilisers or crops is something which they regard as of value. But if it is appreciated that this is merely a rebate of tax which the farmer otherwise would be paying on essential fuel and raw material, and that this rebate is being received directly as he buys the petrol, it is not likely to be regarded as a subsidy. From a psychological point of view that is an important point because of the growing criticism of the farming community in urban areas.
The unfairness, the rough justice, has already been pointed out, and it must operate particularly in the case of stationary engines and pumps, for which no one can compute the amount of their use during any year. Some engines driving crushing and pulping machinery are run on some farms for a very short period in a year. Farmers will vary the amount of use they make of such machinery from year to year, according to the crops they grow and their methods of husbandry. I believe that the only possible way to achieve fairness in this matter is the way suggested in this Amendment.

Mr. Vane: When the Minister of Agriculture resisted this Amendment and gave us just a glimpse of some of the conditions which he thought we might expect to see in the final scheme, he said that this was not a grant in respect of work on golf courses, for instance; but he did not mention the extremely close relations of agriculture, such as forestry. He will agree, I know, when I say that there is scarcely a farm in this country which has not a small amount of timber on it, and indeed ought to have a great deal more. He will recollect that he has just instituted a new subsidy scheme for poplars to be grown on practically every farm. Tractors will spend part of their time, probably, on work connected with this.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say something more about this? It arose on the Finance Bill the other day, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wise enough to discontinue this absurd distinction which the Minister of Agriculture had previously attempted to maintain between pure agriculture and forestry, which is closely bound up with it. I do not want to pursue this matter, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he is going to follow the line of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and will consider forestry operations, for this purpose, as constituting part of agriculture.

Mr. T. Williams: Perhaps I ought to answer the hon. Gentleman at once. The farmers who plant the poplars to which he referred will, of course, qualify for grant as farmers. Therefore, nothing further need be done for them. The Bill, however, deals with machines used for agricultural operations. The whole scheme is based upon the fact that the

February review of farming prices, which operated from 1st April for certain livestock and products, had been fixed only a week or two in advance of the Budget statement. Therefore, to have imposed an extra burden of several million pounds upon the farming community immediately after that review of farming prices would have been unreasonable. At least, the farming community would have been entitled to a special review because of a substantial increase in costs of production. This is not a subsidy to farmers. This provides a rebate for increases in costs of production imposed by the Finance Bill.
I think that I need only reply to one or two other points. It has been said that we should not have introduced a scheme for which we have no powers and before we have come to Parliament to ask for them. Well, all I have to say is that I hope that in his waking hours, either tonight or tomorrow morning, the hon. Member who said that will reconsider it and realise what it implies. The schemes will be retrospective from the date of the Chancellor's statement.

Sir T. Dugdale: When will the farming community know what the scheme is; when will there be details?

Mr. Williams: When the scheme has been produced and is presented to this House.

Sir T. Dugdale: Could we have sonic sort of date?

Mr. Williams: There are still certain points under discussion, and awaiting settlement. The Order will have to be brought in and laid in the House, and members of the farming community, as well as hon. Members, will then know what the scheme contains. I think that answers all the questions raised, except that I was asked whether a separate assessment would be made for each machine. That must be left for the scheme itself. Tonight I have indicated broadly what the scheme may contain, but I did not want to open a wide debate.

Mr. Turton: The Minister has not dealt with the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) as to the words, "subject to any conditions" but if he can, and will, specify the amount of user, then I can appreciate that there will be no point


in pressing this Amendment and I shall be quite happy to withdraw it; but a great deal depends on the legal opinion which the Minister has already received from the Attorney-General.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member allows his imagination to run wild. I have neither sought, nor require, any advice from the Attorney-General. If he will be good enough to read the words again, and try to understand them, he will find they mean "subject to any conditions." and clearly there is power for the Minister to apply any conditions and also particular conditions. Does the hon. Member want more explanation?

Mr. Turton: That is not a legal interpretation given by the Attorney-General, and I must say that I rather mistrust the Minister as a lawyer although not, perhaps, in other directions; but as a result of that opinion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out from "uses," to the end of line 4.
This Amendment deals with the power which the Minister is taking to prohibit grants in respect of machines used on land for a specified time. I should like to ask the Minister what sort of penal power he is here taking? I should have thought that any agricultural land ought to be all right as regards the use of agricultural machines upon it. Quite clearly also, if the Minister can make any scheme subject to any conditions, he does not need this particular penal power. I think it is unhappy that this Bill contains this power, because. after all, a tractor is a multi-purpose machine, whether we use it on land of elsewhere. It would be wrong if the machine were taken on to certain types of land, the farmer should be debarred from receiving a grant. The Minister has sufficient power in this Clause without having these words.

Mr. T. Williams: I thought I had already answered the hon. Gentleman. I said that we wanted to exclude golf courses, sports grounds, recreation grounds, private gardens and that kind of land. Unless we have power in the Bill, it would not be possible to do that. Those are the sort of restrictions that we have in mind.

Mr. Turton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out "(including, in particular, an agricultural tractor)."
This is a drafting Amendment. I do not think the words which it is sought to omit carry any weight in the Clause. There is a legal doctrine—inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary has not got that one, but it is frequently quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), so if he can find the hon. and learned Member somewhere in the House, he can get the right translation. It means that if you include a tractor, you are, by putting in a tractor, excluding something else. I think these words are entirely unnecessary, and I ask the Minister to take them out, because they do not help in the Bill and would cause confusion in the courts if ever they came before the courts.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): It was the accent rather than the translation which worried me. Although I think there is something in the point made by the hon. Gentleman, frankly I do not think there is very much in it. It is common practice to talk of "agricultural tractors and machines." We thought it better to put into the Clause what is the common sort of thing which is clearly understood. Therefore, we included the words "any machine" and to make it quite clear that we are not, by using the word "machine" in the sense in which it is sometimes used, excluding tractors, we go on to say
including, inparticular, an agricultural tractor).
The words avoid any suggestion that we are excluding something else. We think it is better that the words should stand as they are.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The hon. Gentleman has proved conclusively my hon. Friend's case. If one followed his argument to a logical conclusion, it would mean, according to the normal interpretation of machines, probably a static machine, such as a petrol-driven engine for a milking parlour or something of that sort. The hon. Gentleman argued that the words are included in order to ex-


plain to the farmer that, in the particular instance in which the words are used here, the machine is intended to include a tractor. If that be so, then a fortiori it must specifically exclude the use of my jeep and my lorry to which I referred before. I believe that the inclusion of these words which we seek to leave out is a limitation of the type of machine on which the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make grants, rather than an elaboration of the definition of the word "machine" which, for agricultural operations, is perfectly well known and requires no additional significance by the addition of the words which are included in the brackets.

Amendment negatived.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. TURTON:

In page 2, line 12, at end, insert:
'"and the expression agricultural operations' means operations in connection with the use of land for any purpose of husbandry whether as arable meadow, pasture ground, market garden, or orchard, or for the keeping or breeding of livestock or poultry, or for the purpose of a plantation or a wood, or for the growth of saleable underwood.

The Deputy Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): This Amendment is out of order.

Mr. Turton: With great respect, Sir Charles, this Amendment seeks to define certain words. I noticed that the Minister himself, when he was speaking rather widely to the first Amendment, said that "agricultural" was defined by a certain Act of Parliament. That does not occur in the Bill. All that this Amendment does is to insert in the Bill a definition of "agricultural operations," and it is found in the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935. I submit to you most respectfully that it is not an extension of the Bill. It may be that I have quoted a different definition from that which the Minister tried to insert in his speech on the first Amendment. In order that I may define the words which are used both in the Bill and in the Financial Resolution, I submit that the definition must mean a limiting of a broad, wide meaning.

Mr. T. Williams: My reference to the interpretation of the 1947 Act was intended to help the hon. Gentleman, knowing that this Amendment was on the

Order Paper. Parliament accepted that part of the 1947 Act.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not calling this Amendment. It either increases the charge or if it does not increase the charge it is meaningless.

Mr. Vane: The Minister says that he has defined "agricultural operations" for the purposes of this Bill, but in other Statutes the word "agricultural" is given other meanings. How are the courts to interpret this in the future? Are they to accept what the Minister has just said casually, or are they left to choose freely between the different interpretations in different Statutes?

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot answer for the courts. I am only concerned with the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and this Amendment is outside the Money Resolution.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Surely the Committee should be clear about the definition of the words "agricultural operations"? It is upon the definition in the Bill that the courts, if there be some dispute, have got to decide.

The Deputy-Chairman: All we are dealing with is the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and its Money Resolution.

Mr. Turton: With great respect, Sir Charles, I only want to get the meaning of your Ruling clear. Do I understand that if a phrase is used in the Financial Resolution it is out of order to put down an Amendment defining that phrase on the Committee stage of the Bill?

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, if it is going to extend it. The Amendment attempts to define "agricultural operations" in a way which may mean more than agricultural operations. If it does that, it is outside the scope of the Money Resolution. If it does not do that, it is meaningless.

Mr. Turton: Do I understand that, where there is a phrase used in the Financial Resolution to a Bill, it is always out of order to put down in Committee an Amendment defining it?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I did not say that. We are dealing with one Bill here, and the Amendment is out of order. To ask hypothetical questions is not fair;


I am not a lawyer, and I am not going to try to answer them.

Sir T. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to add:
(5) A scheme under this section shall operate for the period of twelve months beginning on the nineteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty:
Provided that the said period may be extended by an order made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State acting jointly and subject to the approval of the Treasury.
The power of making an order under this proviso shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such order shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.
This Amendment is drafted to a large extent on the invitation given by the Minister on Second Reading. The object is two-fold. First, it limits the scheme to a year, after which the situation can be reviewed. The Committee will remember that during the Second Reading the Minister said:
No one can say how long these grants will continue, but, at an early date, we shall consider whether some alternative can be found as a long-term solution of the problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 2664.]
It is in response to that invitation that we have put down this Amendment. We believe—even more so after listening to this Debate that there should be some
limitation to this scheme before it is renewed. The second object is that an Order made under this Clause shall be subject to the affirmative procedure and not to the negative procedure. This was argued at length on a previous occasion, and I do not propose to weary the Committee by repeating what was then said.

Mr. T. Williams: If this Amendment were accepted and if it were, later on, decided to continue the scheme beyond a year, a positive Resolution would be required, although only from the House of Commons. As the Bill stands, no terms are fixed for these petrol grants. The intention was that they should go on as long as they were needed. It is true that I said on Second Reading that no one knows how long this scheme will be necessary. I expressed the hope that it would not be for very long, but I do not see why we should be tied down by an affirmative Resolution each year, assuming that we fail to find an alternative which is fair to the farming com-

munity. If some reasonable way could be found, these grants could be dispensed with.
It would mean that if there were a change in the Petrol Duty or if for some other reason the scheme had to carry on, we should have to come to the House year after year. I have given careful consideration to that part of the Amendment which refers to the affirmative Resolution procedure, and if hon. Members opposite will accept it in the spirit in which it is offered, I am prepared to put down a manuscript Amendment to Clause 4, page 4, line 28, to provide, for Clause 1 only, that the affirmative Resolution procedure shall apply. If the hon. Baronet is prepared to withdraw the Amendment and not move his Amendment, in page 4, line 27, to leave out subsection (3), and to add:
(3) A scheme made under this Act shall be of no effect unless it is approved by resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.
I shall be willing to provide for the affirmative Resolution procedure as indicated.

11.0 p.m.

Sir T. Dugdale: I think that my hon. Friends would prefer to accept the invitation which has been extended to us by the Minister, but I hope it will be possible to discuss the last Amendment to Clause 4 so that he will be able to explain, as the second part of the Bill comes into a difference category, why he cannot accept the affirmative Resolution for that part of the Bill. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we moved that Amendment in order to enable him to explain that. The Committee in this case are grateful for the Minister's consideration which certainly goes a long way to meet the case we have put forward, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(SCHEMES FOR SUBSIDISING USE OF FERTILISERS.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out from "land," to the end of line 30, and to insert:
which—

(a) is under grass; or
(b) has been ploughed up from grass since the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-three."



The first point in the Amendment merely concerns drafting. I think the Clause reads rather better with the wording proposed in the Amendment. The important part of the Amendment is contained in the second part. The point is that a great deal of ploughed-up marginal land and heather, unless it has fertiliser applied every year, goes back, and as the Bill is drafted it is not quite clear whether that land will qualify for grant in successive years after it has been ploughed up. I feel sure the Minister will know of the great difficulty which marginal farmers have, when ploughing up heather, in keeping it from encroaching on the land. I am not certain that this Amendment is drafted in quite the best way. The Minister might have some other form of words for dealing with this problem. Perhaps; too, he might say that he is going to make such Regulations as will ensure that farmers who plough up hill, heather or bracken-infested land will always be able to get the subsidy, provided it is used on that particular land. That is the intention of the Amendment.

Mr, G. Brown: I really think that there is nothing in the first part of the Amendment, and I will spend very little time on it. I think that the wording of the Bill is better. The second past seems to me to be a first-class example of somewhat undesirable retrospective legislation. We are to go back to 1943 for all land ploughed up which has already attracted a grant of £2 an acre at that time, and £4 an acre after that time, which has had the full fertiliser subsidy, and now to include all that land under this Bill.
It seems to me not only is it retrospective legislation, but the taxpayer is being asked to contribute all over again. The obvious thing is to fix the date at the time the scheme starts. We have, in fact, suggested that it should be after the passage of the Bill. It would be wholly wrong to go back on this land which has already qualified under other provisions.

Mr. Baldwin: I think that the Parliamentary Secretary does not quite understand the position with regard to ploughed-up grass. Ploughed up grass is stored up fertiliser, and with the exception of chlorate of lime it does not want

fertiliser for the first year. [Interruption.] I happen to know something about this matter. I know grass which has been ploughed up, and has had no fertiliser for the first three years. That is the position with regard to a lot of land that is being ploughed up now. It is at this stage that the land is crying out for fertiliser. The Amendment is a good and practical one, as against something that is theoretical. Land that has been ploughed up and had the fertility taken out of it now wants fertiliser. I hope the Minister will think again on this matter.

Mr. Dye: I do not want to detain the Committee, but for the hon. Member to argue that very rich grass land which has been ploughed up during the past four or five, or even, seven years, because it is very rich and does not want fertiliser, should now qualify for an additional subsidy which ordinary farm land does not get, is crying out for ridicule.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I do not quite understand the force of that line of argument. I have a certain amount to do with it in a practical sense, and I agree with what my hon. Friend said. Surely the hon. Gentleman is in error in suggesting that we are seeking to insert retrospective powers by this Amendment. The Clause as it stands puts no limit whatever on the date from which the land was ploughed-up from grass: presumably you can go back to 1939 just as well, and the subsidy would be available. What we are seeking to do by this Amendment is to specify a particular limit, whereas, as the Government have drafted the Clause. there is no limit at all.

Mr. G. Brown: The short answer is that the scheme when made will provide the date from which it operates, and it is not our intention in fixing that date to legislate retrospectively for the past seven years.

Amendment negatived.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HURD:

"In page 2, line 28, leave out from 'land' to end of subsection (2)."

The Deputy-Chairman: This Amendment is out of order.

Mr. Hurd: May I seek your guidance, Sir? The Bill is to provide fertilisers for agricultural land, and I am wondering how the Amendment could fall out of order.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is clear if the hon. Gentleman will turn to the Money Resolution. It states under (b).
used on land under grass or ploughed up from grass.
This would be extending the scope of the Bill. As I say, I am not a lawyer, but that is my view. We are working on the Money Resolution.

Mr. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, to leave out paragraph (f).

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps the following Amendment in page 3, line 16, to leave out from "where," to the end of line 20, and to insert:
a tillage order has been served upon the occupier with respect to that land and he has failed to comply with that order.
might be discussed with this one.

Sir T. Dugdale: That would be convenient to the Committee.

Mr. Nugent: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that this Amendment is being moved. The points in this and the next Amendment were put to him on Second Reading. We pointed out that in ordinary practice the farmer would have applied fertilisers before he knew the Minister was going to give a subsidy. In those circumstances he may well have undertaken expenditure expecting to get a subsidy, but the subsidy may subsequently be withheld. I cannot believe that the Minister really intended to introduce such a piece of legislation. If his Advisory Service were to administer a sanction of that kind, it would have the opposite effect to that which he desires, which is confidence in the Advisory Service.
The other aspect which would be objectionable is that the farmer could not know in advance whether or not he would be recouped. I should like the paragraph to be deleted. If the Minister is unable to do that, perhaps he will accept our next Amendment because that will provide a safeguard so that the farmer will know what his position will be before he embarks on the expenditure and the operations on his land.

Mr. G. Brown: I get more and more surprised at the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent). He appears to be slipping from grace in a number of ways. I do not agree with his argument in so far as he says that we must defend those who are not playing their part in securing the degree of tillage that we require. There is everything to be said, short of the final sanction, for giving the committees who administer agricultural policy and seek to obtain the county targets such support and incentives as one can to enable them to get the laggards to come up to scratch.
Whenever I visit a county, I get far more criticism from those who are playing their full part. They say that, short of the final'sanction, there is so little that can be done about the unco-operative fellow, and they always ask why they cannot be given more influence over such people. The hon. Member for Guildford is arguing that, short of the final sanction, we should not be able to do anything with that sort of person. The introduction of new assistance of this kind is preeminently the sort of occasion on which one says to such people "Unless you play your part like your fellow farmers, you cannot expect to share in this assistance," because it is, in part, designed to secure adequate breaking up.
The next Amendment asks us to serve more tillage orders in such cases, but we do not want to have to serve more tillage orders if we can attain the same objective by quieter and more peaceful means. The insertion of the next Amendment would mean that in every case the committees would have to serve a tillage order to be able to withhold the grant if they so desired at a later stage. Leaving the position as it is, they can use their powers of persuasion and use a gentler stick.
On Second Reading the hon. Member for Guildford asked for an assurance that a warning will be given before this action is taken. He referred to the case of a man who may already have incurred expense without knowing his position. I am happy to give that sort of assurance. Action under this provision will not be taken without a preliminary warning having been given. A committee will say "For reasons which you already know" —for the matter will have been discussed already—" we do not think that you are keeping enough of your land in tillage. We will pay the grant on this occasion


because of special circumstances, but we give you clear warning that unless you change your habits in this regard, and have increased tillage, we will not pay a similar grant in future." With that assurance and in view of what I said on the principle, I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: I am not altogether satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's reply. It is not so long since we had the Agriculture (Area of Pasture) Order in which the Minister took power to limit the area of pasture on any holding. I agree with him that the majority of farmers play the game. I do not think very many directions have been served anywhere in the country, but it seems absurd, when this Order exists and when directions are being served, that we should have in this Bill a provision which will cause a certain amount of uncertainty in the farming community. The farmer will not really know whether he is going to be safe on his holding or not.
I think the Government would be acting in a much more straightforward manner if they made this grant available to all holders unless they had come under the Area of Pasture Order, and had been told that they had to till an area of grass. As it stands, I think we shall find that many farmers will wonder whether they are going to have the grant withdrawn even when free from any form of supervision either under the Act or under the Area of Pasture Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider this point, which I think is of considerable importance.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Paragraph (f) provides that the Minister can
…withhold contributions for fertilisers used on land under grass where in his opinion the occupier of the land has an excessive proportion of land under grass, ….
What is the definition of "excessive proportion"? Supposing, for the sake of argument, 50 acres is considered an excessive proportion, but 30 acres is not. Is the grant going to be withheld for the whole 50 acres or only for the difference between 50 and 30? We would like to know exactly how this proportion is to be interpreted. Is the grant to be withheld only in respect of that portion of

the total which is considered to be excessive?

Mr. Gooch: Too much is being made of this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary made it plain that this provision is made in order to deal with the farmer who is not pulling his weight. As for this creating uncertainty in the minds of farmers, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) suggested, I do not think it will do so at all. Farmers know when they are doing wrong. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has gone further here than he should have done. He said we have to give them what they are asking for in the first year and withhold it the second year. I think we should withhold it the first year. The average farmer working under the agricultural executive committee knows clearly where his duty lies. There is no uncertainty in the mind of any farmer in regard to this position.

Mr. Baldwin: May I reinforce the arguments put forward from this side? The necessity for this Clause simply means that the district officers are not doing their job. If there is any farmer who has an excessive amount of grass, he should have been put under a supervision order under the Act. Then there would have been no doubt in the minds of people applying for a grant whether they were entitled to it or not. There will be a great deal of hesitation in the minds of farmers who are not sure whether it will be maintained that they have an excessive amount of grass. I consider that if a farmer has an excessive amount of grass, it is up to the district officer to put him in the right place. He has the power to do it and should be doing it.

Sir T. Dugdale: We are grateful to the Government for the assurance that there will be a warning. I think that that is a step forward. Our reason for moving this Amendment is that we believe that the original proposal will clutter up the administration of a scheme which will be very difficult to administer, in any case. We have not seen the scheme in England, yet, and I have no doubt that I should be out of order if I detailed the Scottish scheme; but that scheme has been issued, giving all the various grades of fertiliser subsidies which are to be introduced. It will be an extremely difficult scheme to administer,


and, while we accept the Government's assurance that there will be a warning, before this Bill goes to another place I hope the Minister will have another look at this paragraph and consider whether it is really necessary for the good administration of the scheme.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 25 and 26.
This Amendment is to leave out the provision that the Minister shall specify the period in which the fertilisers can be used after ploughing up. I ask the Minister what is going to happen to the hilly and marginal land. It may be that the answer to my views upon this part of the Bill is that the Minister will use the marginal production scheme and that the farmer will be entitled to help for fertilisers which he uses not only in the first year of ploughing up, but in other years; and that therefore the Minister will justify the stand that he is taking in stipulating that it is only one year in which the farmer will get any help from fertiliser subsidy on any particular land.
I stress the point, although I do not want to speak long, as I have dealt with a similar point earlier, that it is very hard upon small farmers in hilly land who have to use a very large quantity of phosphate manure to keep their land free from bracken and heather. So I ask the Minister to explain what he is going to do under these powers and, if his powers are limited to one year, what help is to be given to the upland farmer in subsequent years?

Mr. T. Williams: The answer is very simple. The intention of this part of the scheme is to apply the subsidy specifically and directly to the operation of ploughing up. As the subsidy is based upon the application of fertilisers, we must place some limit on the time in which that part of the operation must take place. The actual time will be specified in the scheme, and I do not think it will affect adversely the lowland or hill-land or marginal farmer, since the time during which the fertilisers must be used on that grassland ploughed up will be specified in the scheme.

Mr. Turton: What is the position of the upland and marginal farmers who have to put fertilisers on their land for

several years to keep down bracken and heather?

Mr. Williams: We have already said that the subsidy for grassland is one-third: and for land ploughed up from grass after seven years it is two-thirds, up to a maximum of £3 an acre. Beyond that there is nothing I can add to the matter.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: May I ask the Minister to reconsider the point which has been made about making this scheme too rigid? The Minister is binding himself to time limits which really do not seem necessary at all and which cannot do him any good, or be of any use to the taxpayer; they can only be to the detriment of the farmer.

Mr. Baldwin: I should like to raise the case of the man who ploughs up his grass in the summer to plant winter corn. There are many such people, but it may well be that, when the time comes for planting the winter corn, the weather does not allow of it and the land may remain unplanted until the spring. If he has to apply his fertiliser in a specified period, it means that he will have to do it months before it is needed, and the benefits will be lost. Fertiliser should not be put on ploughed up grass before it is needed.

Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Member that we have given thought to that.

Mr. Turton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, to leave out paragraph (i).
This paragraph deals with the contributions below a minimum obtained in a specified manner, and I think that the Minister will agree, on reflection, that it is a harsh little paragraph. I am sure that he does not want to "do down" the small man, and it would not damage his Bill at all if he took out this paragraph. The small man is much worse off than any other farmer, and I ask the Minister to deal sympathetically with him.

Mr. G. Brown: I do not think that the Committee need be much worried about this. The scheme may restrict, and in particular, may specify certain things. It is common form to have a de minimis provision. When the hon. Gentleman sees


the scheme, he will be satisfied that we have not done something silly; but there must be a limit, below which the whole thing would become cluttered up. There ought to be some de minimis line, and we thought it right that there should be this provision. I assure the hon. Member that he will be quite happy when he sees the scheme.

Mr. Turton: In view of those remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"

Mr. Moeran: I assume that my Amendment to define "fertilisers" has not been selected, and, therefore, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could give some assurance about what the word includes. It looks as though there will be no definition in the Bill. Will the Minister have power to grant for organic, as well as inorganic, fertilisers? Will farmyard manure be included? What wider powers can be exercised by the Minister?

Mr. G. Brown: I am happy to give the assurance that while we specify no kind of fertiliser, the term includes the kinds my hon. Friend has in mind. I cannot commit myself tonight to saying which will be included, but I am sure that he will be satisfied.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: I should like to raise a point which concerns those north of the Border. In paragraph (h), there is reference to the
costs of transporting fertilisers in excess of rates ascertained by reference to the cost of acquiring the fertilisers…
and so on.
I hope that we can get an assurance now in relation to the remote areas or less profitable areas where they are already suffering increased rate charges as well as removal of fertiliser subsidy, that their removal from centres of production is not going to mitigate against grants. That is to say, we hope that this paragraph is not going to affect grants in places in the far-off West of Scotland and the marginal land areas in relation to the transport rates which

would be charged. If the Parliamentary Secretary or the Scottish Minister, whom I see in her place, can answer that, it would wipe out some apprehension in those areas.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I wonder if the Minister would be good enough to give me an answer to my question about subsection (2)? I will repeat it to make it clear. If the Minister is to be empowered to withhold contribution regarding fertiliser used on land where in his opinion there is an excessive proportion of land in grass, is the contribution being withheld if the figure named is 50 acres, for the sake of argument, over the whole or only over that proportion of the 50 acres which is considered to be excessive?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: We are dealing with a Clause which is to provide the machinery for a scheme to enable farmers to have a subsidy for the use of fertilisers. It involves not only the Clause, but five sub-clauses, 14-sub-clauses and two sub-sub-sub-clauses, and then we do not know what the scheme is. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that farmers are going to be able to carry on their business with the full and proper planning efficiency which they have been accustomed to in the past if they are to be subjected to legislation of this sort. The proper and right way of dealing with this matter is by the February price review and not having all this complicated machinery in order to produce an unknown scheme for an unknown purpose.

Mr. G. Brown: I must say that I get very near to resenting that kind of speech. The purpose of this—and I am glad the hon. Gentleman is now on record about it and I do hope steps will be taken to let the people of Chichester know about this speech—is, after all, to carry out the arrangements which have been made at the time of the price review. The hon. Gentleman complained that the farmers are being subjected to this kind of legislation. He means that the Government are carrying out their part of the price review. I commend that kind of comment to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) and the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) as an example of how some hon. Members are tempted to talk politics on this sort of thing.
We have tried our best here to do what we have been accused of not doing earlier in the Bill—to give as much idea as we can of the kind of scheme there will be. If we carry out the terms of the price review the Government ought not to be open to that kind of attack. With regard to the question about withholding contribution on 30 or 50 acres, the answer is that it will be covered in the scheme; but the general intention is that if the fellow is not farming in accordance with the policy which this part of the Bill is intended to induce, then he will not, subject to the warning I have mentioned, qualify for the benefit under the Clause at all on anything. If he farms in accordance with the general policy, of course, he comes in.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Perth, I cannot give him a firm answer at the moment. It is one of the things we are discussing and it is a point that we have fully in mind.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(MAKING AND ALTERATION OF SCHEMES.)

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, to leave out from "instrument" to the end of the subsection and to insert:
(4) A statutory instrument making varying or revoking a scheme under section one of this Act shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) A statutory instrument making varying or revoking a scheme under section two of this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
This is a manuscript Amendment, and applies only to Clause 1. Clause 2 is quite a different matter. It forms an integral part of the recent February price review settlement, and continues down to 1953. It was announced to this House immediately after the review was completed and the settlement was reached, and therefore we do discriminate between Clauses 1 and 2. I hope that with that simple explanation hon. Members opposite will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Turton: We have had a long interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, and as this Amendment was not put on the Order Paper we could not see it before it was moved. It is very difficult to gather exactly what the Minister is doing when he suddenly reads out a draft Amendment. One point he has not covered is this. As I understand it. Clause 1 gives a grant to a certain number of farmers. If that is so, I would like to raise a point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on the Second Reading. It is really one of those cases where the affirmative resolution procedure should be confined to the Commons House of Parliament, and not otherwise. It is quite clear from Erskine May that in all cases where under the Finance Bill a grant or tax is being made or levied it shall be merely the Commons House of Parliament that shall approve the Resolution.

Mr. G. Brown: In the Second Reading Debate I gave specific examples from past Acts of Parliament dealing with exactly the same thing, where the affirmative resolution covered both Houses of Parliament. Many more examples can be given. The hon. Gentleman must not say that this is against previous practice.

Mr. Turton: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that interruption. On the Committee stage I agree he gave cases where the kind of subsidy covered by Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of this Bill had been subject to annulment. But Clause 1 is quite different. That relates to a grant made by Parliament to certain holders of certain machines, and that is the kind of grant that Is laid down in Erskine May as being not questionable in the other place. It is the privilege of this House that only this House can determine the question of a grant to a subject of the Crown. It is quite different from a subsidy which was given as an example by the Parliamentary Secretary in the Second Reading Debate. For those reasons, I press the Government to reconsider this Amendment and limit the affirmative resolution to the Commons House of Parliament.

Mr. T. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman presses me to make it a negative Resolution I will gladly do that. I should like to give the following examples of cases in which legislation is referred to both


Houses: Scheme for payments for depreciation of land values to be approved by both Houses: Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, s. 58 (6). Regulations as to payments for superannuation subject to approval by both Houses: National Health Service Act, 1946, ss. 67 and 75 (1). Regulations governing distribution of compensation to doctors liable to be annulled by either House of Parliament: National Health Service Act, 1946, ss. 36 and 75 (2). Regulations as to Exchequer grants for local governments liable to annulment by either House of Parliament: Local Government Act, 1948, ss. 15, 31 and 142 (1). Many more examples could be quoted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(SHORT TITLE AND INTERPRETATION.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Vane: Since this appears to be an interpretation Clause, may I ask the Minister whether he cannot at a later stage suggest some Amendment to make it clear exactly what "agricultural operations" means? There were some doubts expressed earlier, and this is surely the occasion to clear up the matter. Would it not be a simple matter to add something to this Clause to remove these reasonable doubts?

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

CENSUS OF DISTRIBUTION (RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE)

11.43 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move,
That the Draft Census of Distribution (1951) (Restriction on Disclosure) Order, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.
This Order is extremely limited in scope and does not raise all the general questions about the Census of Distribution. Under the Statistics of Trade Act, there were provisions to prevent the disclosure of individual particulars furnished by individual undertakings, and powers were given to the President of the Board of Trade to extend the control over disclosure. This Order provides that there shall be no disclosure of information sent in by individual undertakings, even to other Government Departments. It prohibits disclosure for any purpose except for the purposes of the Census. Assurances have been given in the House and to the principal trade associations that an Order would be made providing for very special treatment of the information supplied under the Census of Distribution, and I hope that this Order will give the necessary reassurance to those shopkeepers and others who are worried as to the confidential nature of the returns they fill in.

Question put, and agreed to.

FERTILISERS (CHARGES)

Resolved:
That the Fertilisers (Charges) Order, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 1039), dated 23rd June. 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved."—[Mr. Rhodes.]

UNEMPLOYED DISABLED MEN, NORTH STAFFS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]

11.45 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I apologise for having to detain the House a little longer, but my colleagues and I feel that the subject of this Adjournment Debate is of such importance that we must take up the time of the House. I want, in the first place, to place on record my gratitude and appreciation that the country finds itself in terms of employment in a better position than ever before in peace-time. It is a grand thing, that pretty nearly every man and woman who is willing to work is able to do so. Although there are pockets of unemployment up and down the country we find, if we look at the figures, that from the beginning of this year there has been a general decline. In January there were 403,000 unemployed and at 15th May there were 341,391. Against that figure we find that there were many vacancies unfilled. For the week ended 10th May, 1950, the figure was in fact in excess of the number of unemployed people. According to the Ministry of Labour Gazette there were some 368,259 vacancies unfilled in Britain on that date.
I want to pay particular attention to a certain aspect of the unemployment problem, in the sense that there are among this number of 341,000 some 64,267, between one-fifth and one-sixth of the total, who are disabled persons. In passing, I should like to place on record my appreciation of the fine work the Ministry of Labour has done, not only in rehabilitation, but in general welfare, for ex-Service men and those with congenital diseases and special handicaps, to enable them to get a place in society again.
The figure of disabled people which represents between one-fifth and one-sixth of the total unemployed, can again be broken down. We find that in disabled people there are ex-service men and other people who require special conditions before they can hope to get employment. We know that there is the statutory requirement which asks that employers shall take up, I think it is 3 per

cent., of disabled persons in their establishments. That has been worked, I understand, with very good will, and in some establishments, and in local and national government generally, the figure is in the region of 5 per cent. and even higher. That is excellent.
We on these benches, whilst we are appreciative of the economic situation of the nation, must be constantly concerned about this minority of people, this hard core who are handicapped and find it increasingly difficult to get a job of work. I have obtained figures for the North Staffordshire area, and in particular for Stoke-on-Trent. and the national situation is reflected pretty well in the local figures. There has been a considerable improvement over the years in the unemployment position. On the average we have about 933 registered unemployed persons. I say "registered" advisedly because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Dr. Stross) will be able to confirm, there are many people who are not registered as disabled. There are people who are not drawing unemployment benefit, whose condition is such that they may have exhausted their benefit, or they may feel unable to take any work.
I asked the Minister the other day for some figures relating to this "hard core," this minority of our unemployed in Stoke-on-Trent. I asked how many had been unemployed for, say, six or 12 months. The figures given to me were that there were 99 persons who had been unemployed for six to 12 months, and 97 who had been unemployed for more than 12 months—a total of 196. That is to say, on an average of 900 persons unemployed, 17 per cent. were disabled persons who had been out of work more than six months, and 22 per cent. of disabled and other persons. Although these may seem small figures, when I say that these unfortunate men come to see us as Members of Parliament, week by week, to ask if we can assist them to get some sort of job, it will be realised that we feel we must raise this matter with the Minister and ask if anything further can be done.
In the area my hon. Friend and I have the honour to represent—the hon. Member for Stoke, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) unfortunately cannot be here tonight—we have problems arising out of the two


basic industries, pottery and mining. Because of the nature of those industries there are special diseases which arise, pneumoconiosis, silicosis, and respiratory diseases. Many of these people are unable to find employment in ordinary factory conditions, for obvious reasons. I am not proposing to develop that, because I want my colleague, with his expert medical knowledge and his long experience as an industrial consultant to these two great industries, to say a word or two about that aspect of the matter.
Already something has been done by way of providing for this hard core of unemployed, these unfortunate men and women who are unable to find a little niche in the industrial society in which we live. Some people have had the advantage of training schemes. We have some facilities at the Remploy factories in our district. But I must say that the facilities which exist at the moment are sadly inadequate to the need. Moreover, as the Minister has informed me in correspondence, the Remploy facilities are reserved for those people who are severely disabled in such a way that they are unable to take up employment in ordinary conditions.
On 30th March I wrote to the Minister and asked what facilities existed for people who did not qualify for consideration under the Remploy factory scheme. I pointed out that there are many people who, for one reason or another—they have either gone out of industry, are congenitally weak, or are handicapped in some way—require special consideration. The Minister wrote that there are no facilities in North Staffordshire for training in Government centres or residential centres. Training can be provided at technical colleges or with employers, and applications for training are welcomed, particularly as these facilities are not utilised to the fullest extent.
We are grateful for what has been done. We should like an extension of the Remploy facilities if possible, and we should also like consideration given to the introduction into North Staffordshire of an industrial rehabilitation unit. The Minister possesses powers, referred to in the Ministry of Labour Gazette of March, 1950, where an excellent review of this

work is given, which enable him to set up these units. They enable people who, for the reasons which I have mentioned, are unable to secure employment to be brought, upon a doctor's recommendation, within the compass of a special training scheme in a unit of 50 or 100 people. Special attention is given to their mental make-up, their physical capacity and their vocational ability, and everything is done to put them on their feet again.
It is excellent that a man in middle life who is unable to pursue his ordinary vocation and feels that he may be thrown on the scrap heap should have another chance through this rehabilitation work. In an area such as North Staffordshire, where we have a population of 280,000 to 300,000, there is excellent scope for a development of this kind. We know it will cost money, but if full employment is to continue it is unsatisfactory that we should say to these people year in year out, "We are very sorry for you but we cannot do anything more about it."
Despite the hard core of unemployment, 4,780 vacancies notified to the employment exchanges in Stoke-on-Trent remained unfilled on 12th June. If there are all those vacancies—never mind the human side at the moment, although that is the great aspect to my mind—we should do everything possible to see that this potential labour is used in some way. This proposal should be well worth examining, and I hope that the Minister will give it consideration.

11.58 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I am grateful for an opportunity to say a few words about the area which I represent and in which I have lived for 25 years. We used to have a sorrowful reputation for being the area in which the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis was as high as or higher than that of any other large town in the country. Today the situation has radically changed. If we take the big towns with populations approximating to ours or greater, there are now only three in the country where the situation is better than it is in the Potteries. Only in Bradford, Wolverhampton and Birmingham is the incidence of tuberculosis lower than it is in Stoke-on-Trent, of which we are very proud when we consider the special risks which we run from mining and our great pottery industry.
None the less, even now some 40 people die every year from industrial respiratory disease, and the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis is roughly 300 new cases a year. Our determination is that this scourge shall be wiped out altogether. The special arrangements which exist, for which we thank the Ministry of Labour, do not get to the root of the problem yet, for in the Remploy factories in Stoke-on-Trent there is room at present for only 25 cases of respiratory disease which is not tuberculosis, and of tuberculosis cases the number employed is 15, giving us 40 in all.
We recognise that in the past our difficulties and our high rate of infection of tuberculosis were due to poverty and our industry. We know that our improvement today is due to a higher standard of living, to full employment, a rise in the real value of wages, and to better nutrition, for our consumption of milk and milk products is a little over twice as high as it was before the war. That is very significant. I must say a word of thanks for the work done by the Medical Officer of Health and his staff in all these many years in tackling such a difficult problem.
I have said that our objective is to wipe out this scourge from our midst. We must do so because we always run a risk of further infection. There are 70,000 people employed in the Potteries and of these many thousands are exposed to the inhalation of silica dust. To put it in the words of an eminent expert on tuberculosis, it is "just silly" to run the risk of people who may affect their neighbours working in potteries where there is heat and humidity and many of which are old factories without the best type of light and ventilation. It is criminal to take any risks of that kind.
We feel that this country needs a new approach to the whole question of aftercare of people suffering from respiratory diseases and to the question of rehabilitation. I have heard it said we can cure tuberculosis in a cellar, and it is true. We do not have to send cases to Switzerland, if we can be sure of a real incentive to the patient to make him want to live and get better. How do we give the patient such an incentive? Obviously there must be suitable employment of the right type waiting for him when he has improved

sufficently to earn a living. At the same time as we do this, we have to assure the public that we are protecting them against any existing infection.
My hon. Friend and I have had communications from many sources about this matter. Apart from the information given by the Medical Officer of Health for Stoke-on-Trent, I will mention only one, from the Secretary of the Pottery Workers Society. This trade union extends all over Great Britain, to Scotland and Devon, but its main home is in Stoke-on-Trent. In his letter, the Secretary wonders whether it would be possible for the Ministry to consider the building in our area of a light industry suitable for sufferers from pneumoconiosis and convalescents from tuberculosis, one to which a subsidy might be paid for every worker.
If, for example, we established a cardboard box factory, all we would have to do would be to persuade manufacturers to take more cardboard for packing. There are two small factories in the city, but I am sure that with a little influence and forethought there is room for another one which could employ hundreds of men. There are 9,000 on the unemployed register—some 8,000 men and 800 women —and there are many people who do not sign on the register because they suffer from respiratory diseases and are unable to do any kind of work possibly available for them. For these reasons my hon. Friend and I plead with the Minister and do so with some expectation of receiving a sympathetic reply from him.

12.4 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee): My hon. Friends the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) and Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), have raised this very important issue not for the first time, though I think this is the first occasion on which they have raised it on the Adjournment. Ever since they became Members of this House in '1945, they have shown a lively interest in the welfare of the disabled in the Potteries. Throughout that period, in their Questions in the House and communications with the Minister, they have always kept their discussions on a constructive note. They have been most considerate of the work which the Ministry have attempted to do. I assure them that the manner in which they have


presented their case to-night will certainly appeal not only to me, but also to those who are working for the Ministry in their region, and who have nothing but good to say of the way in which my hon. Friends look after the interests of their constituents in this direction.
The number of unemployed has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North. In the Potteries as a whole, 1,306 persons are unemployed out of 177,000 insured workers, which is 0.7 per cent. against a national figure of 1.6 per cent. In relation to this figure, for the Potteries the number of disabled unemployed is greater than for some areas. It is approximately five per 1,000 of the insured population, against a national figure of some three per 1,000. The probable reason for this is that the main industries of the area, pottery and coal mining, both throw up a fair number of disabled persons and, because of the nature of that type of work, the disabled person finds great difficulty in securing re-engagement.
With regard to the number of registered disabled in North Staffordshire, the percentage of disabled unemployed is not appreciably greater than it is for the rest of the country. The numbers show a percentage of 8.7 against 6.9, which is the national figure. Both of my hon. Friends have made a reference to disabled unemployed persons who have been out of work for a considerable time. The national figure—I do not want to go into too many details—shows that rather more than half the disabled unemployed have been out of work for six months or more, whereas in North Staffordshire the figure is rather less than half.
Again, there is the age factor which plays a considerable part in the unemployment of disabled people. In North Staffordshire, we find that about one-third of the disabled unemployed are more than 55 years of age, whereas the national figure shows some 30 per cent. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, raised the question of pneumoconiosis. The number of registered disabled persons in North Staffordshire suffering from pneumoconiosis is 343, of whom 37, including 28 ex-coalminers, are unemployed. That is something like 10 per cent. Nationally, there are 16,000 persons registered as suffering from pneu-

moconiosis, of whom 4,600, mostly in South Wales, are unemployed; a figure of nearly 30 per cent. In North Staffordshire, nearly half the 37 unemployed are over 55 years of age. The number of persons disabled by tuberculosis registered in North Staffordshire is 395, of whom 27 are unemployed, which is 6.8 per cent. The national percentage is 5.8 unemployed.
The question of Remploy has been mentioned. We have some 82 Remploy factories in the country, of which 78 are operating, having a total capacity of 7,300 and 4,566 persons being employed. Both hon. Members have had correspondence with the Minister on that side of the question. Reference has been made to the fact that there is still room for some additional workers in the Stoke-on-Trent Remploy factories. In Stoke-on-Trent the capacity is 250 and the number of workers employed is 112. In Longton, the capacity is 50 and the number employed 38. In Newcastle, the capacity is 35, and the number employed 33.
We are trying to build up, so far as Remploy is concerned; but there is need to train men in the factories so that we can provide work for others later on. Then, the Corporation must ensure an adequate flow of orders before they can take on a great deal more labour. That is roughly the position so far as Remploy is concerned. These facilities in the North Staffordshire area are probably more generous than they are in other regions. In the whole region of the Midlands, there are six factories, of which three are in North Staffordshire.
Reference has been made to the possibility of erecting a special Remploy factory for The tuberculous in North Staffordshire. The fact is that there are 27 tuberculous persons unemployed in the area, not all of whom could be taken into Remploy schemes, and a special factory could not be erected or planned for fewer than 100 people. The erection of such factories also has been slowed down because of the general restriction, and out of 19 planned, five are open at Leeds, Hull, Bristol, Bermondsey, and Birmingham.
The prospect of bringing more light industries into the area has been considered by my Department, in consultation with the Board of Trade, but one of the great problems to be faced if we did this is


that bringing in such industries would immediately attract female labour upon a considerable scale. As my hon. Friends know, that would mean that women would go from the Potteries, in which there is already a shortage of female labour, to enter the light industries introduced into the area.

Dr. Stross: Will the hon. Gentleman say something about the proposal to have a rehabilitation unit? While we appreciate the position regarding Remploy factories, it is a fact that they cater only for the severely disabled? I have been told that they only provide for male labour.

Mr. Lee: In the few minutes which I have left, I cannot answer all the points, but I will write to the hon. Member. I would emphasise that the prospects of bringing more industries into the area has been considered in consultation with the Board of Trade, and my right hon. Friend told the House on 11th November, 1949, that a substantial amount of light industry, giving employment to 3,500 workers, has been introduced since the

end of the war. I can give the assurance that every possible step is being taken in the North Staffordshire area, as elsewhere, to place disabled men in suitable jobs. It should be remembered that, over the past year, the number of disabled unemployed in North Staffs has dropped from 1,028 in April, 1949, to 892 in April of this year. That is a reduction of one-eighth.
May I say, in conclusion, that the Ministry value most highly the co-operation which we have received from my two hon. Friends in a work which they know is not only part of their job as public men, but which is also a deeply humane work. Great progress has been made, and I hope that even greater progress will be achieved.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Thursday evening, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a Quarter past Twelve o'Clock a.m.